Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Johnny Rotten · 09-03-2005, 01:04 PM

I veer towards the "strictly necessary" model of existence. If something is not strictly necessary for the system to sustain itself, then it can removed from the equation. I do not think our system requires an omniscient being to maintain it. I think it is, to a certain and significant degree, self-sustaining. For example, although humans are historically brutal and avaricious, there still an underlying, subconscious understanding that some things can simply not be done if we are to preserve what we have. Mutually assured destruction is what allowed us to avert nuclear devastation for the past fifty years or so. However, this doesn't necessarily prevent us from developing a technology with more destructive potential than we're aware of.

So the population of our system is primarily interested in maintaining itself, thus making an arch-being unneccesary. Now, you may look at our widespread pollution and warfare and disagree with me, but these elements have more to do with ignorance and outright apathy towards long-term effects. If our self-sustaining extinct fails, it is because our species has failed. Furthermore -- and Judeo-Christians will probably find this notion distasteful -- our continued presence on this Earth or any other planet is not necessary. There is no indication that an arch-being would require our presence, our safety, or our worship in its overall plan. Earth is but a speck on a grain of sand on a beach so large that its parameters can not be entirely determined. On the other side of the coin, there is no indication that our destruction is necessary.

Although I am spiritual, I am confident that it is up to us, and not "God's grace," to survive and make something meaningful of ourselves. If we have any mission at all, I think it is to become graceful ourselves. And that grace may come in the form of complete sacrifice, which I believe is the highest form of honor.

So that's a long way of saying that defining omniscience is, in my opinion, a misleading endeavor.

09-03-2005, 01:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	I veer towards the "strictly necessary" model of existence. If something is not strictly necessary for the system to sustain itself, then it can removed from the equation. I do not think our system requires an omniscient being to maintain it. I think it is, to a certain and significant degree, self-sustaining. For example, although humans are historically brutal and avaricious, there still an underlying, subconscious understanding that some things can simply not be done if we are to preserve what we have. Mutually assured destruction is what allowed us to avert nuclear devastation for the past fifty years or so. However, this doesn't necessarily prevent us from developing a technology with more destructive potential than we're aware of. So the population of our system is primarily interested in maintaining itself, thus making an arch-being unneccesary. Now, you may look at our widespread pollution and warfare and disagree with me, but these elements have more to do with ignorance and outright apathy towards long-term effects. If our self-sustaining extinct fails, it is because our species has failed. Furthermore -- and Judeo-Christians will probably find this notion distasteful -- our continued presence on this Earth or any other planet is not necessary. There is no indication that an arch-being would require our presence, our safety, or our worship in its overall plan. Earth is but a speck on a grain of sand on a beach so large that its parameters can not be entirely determined. On the other side of the coin, there is no indication that our destruction is necessary. Although I am spiritual, I am confident that it is up to us, and not "God's grace," to survive and make something meaningful of ourselves. If we have any mission at all, I think it is to become graceful ourselves. And that grace may come in the form of complete sacrifice, which I believe is the highest form of honor. So that's a long way of saying that defining omniscience is, in my opinion, a misleading endeavor. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine