quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
I think most of the deities “known to man” come with quite a baggage. What they have said, what they have done, what they expect us to do/think/believe. Even what they look like! Therefore, accepting some high-tech aliens (not necessarily humanoids!), coming from the planet X in the Galaxy Y found at Z light-years away as actually being some deity would be greatly reduced. (In our Universe, not in a Stargate-like one).
I do believe there is more to this Universe that Humans and Human knowledge. But most of the deities claim to have the humans as a central point of interest, which is illogical for me and completely useless. To the best of my knowledge there is no such deity, thus I declare myself to be an atheist. I might be wrong but for now my belief holds.
Being presented with an alien race claiming to be a deity would explain the other’s previous belief in that deity but would not change my “world view”. It would only increase my understanding/knowledge.
Now, my way to deal with those “deities” would depend on the way they deal with me. Would they order me around “just because they are the deity” (and I’m a mere human) or would they be ready to explain and teach me, giving me the knowledge needed to understand the reasons behind their “orders”. But I digress.
posted
Good post, Corwin (bottom of previous page for those who missed it).
I dislike the latest "what if" because it postulates "undeniable proof" and the existence of something like that is almost as elusive as the existence of God. However, I do like the question of what it would take for someone to radically change their beliefs.
What if you woke up tomorrow to a CNN news report that a disaster of some sort had happened at The Vatican. The details were sketchy but as things were pieced together the "facts" were as follows: At midnight a bright light shown down out of the sky directly above Vatican City and lasted about 15 min. This is from eye-witness testimony because all electronic equipment within a 2 mile radius of Vatican City ceased functioning so there is no video or photos of the event. (Some said they saw The Virgin descend in the light, but most reported it too bright to look at directly) The earth shook (which registered as a mild earthquake on seismic readers throughout Italy). Everyone within the limits of Vatican City collapsed on the spot and those who noticed and ran to help also collapsed once they got within the limits. This lasted for one hour after which everyone woke up as if from a deep sleep. Of those affected, the ones willing to talk to reporters could only remember the light and the shaking and then waking up. The next day The Pope announces to the world that he had a heavenly visitation wherein God himself appeared and gave new instructions for the world. He declared "The Era Of God's Kingdom on Earth" begun and that it would start at Vatican City and spread outward and that all within its borders would declare Christ the King or be expulsed.
What would you do? How would this affect your religious beliefs?
Now, the next day the Italian Goverment announces that it is officially subordinate to The Vatican. Already train-loads of the non-compliant are being taken to the borders and simply dropped off. Any Christians desiring to join the Kingdom of God would be welcomed at the borders.
What would you do? What would you hope the US government would do?
Over time, indeed, neighboring countries subordinate their governments to The Vatican, deport non-believers and welcome "true Christians". The borders are heavily protected by the KOG military. They make no attacks on their neighbors, but when attacked respond with devastating force, pushing into the country and claiming any land taken in retalliation to be part of the KOG. All of Europe and even one or two countries in the Middle East/Asia have accepted and been assimilated into the KOG. Pres. Bush has been invited to a summit meeting at The Vatican.
What do you hope he would do? What would you do if he returned and declared that the US was now part of the KOG, KOG troops were already in DC and KOG education and assimilation troops would be proceeding across the country by state. By all accounts these troops are exceedingly polite and only use adequate force to overcome specific resistance. Would you fight on principle or attend one of the education camps to see what it's all about?
What if in the education camp you learned that their was no freedom of religion, but all freedoms consistent with Christian commandments were preserved. (I.E. Christian "commandments" were now the law of the land. Disagreements and disputes were handled summarily by KOG appointed judges and their judgement was unappealable.)
What would you do? Fight? Accept the KOG? Would you be happy there? In what way would it be different from your current concept of the KOG on earth? How do you think the world will get from here to there (i.e. your concept of the KOG on Earth)?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, forgot the primary scenario I was driving at:
What if you did "accept Christ" and entered the KOG, secretly not sure about it, but figuring it sounded better than deportment/expulsion. What if after a year there you found that there was no crime, no disease or sickness, and no poverty. This was all done through (as far as you can tell) advanced technology. Most of the hierarchy of the government of the KOG looked oddly not-quite-human, but human enough that they could be angels or divinely touched humans or possibly alien beings posing as such. If you made any mistakes they were explained to you and a method for correcting your mistake was shown to you. Punishment wasn't meted out except in cases of refusal to correct the mistakes or comply with official rulings. For the most part you see that this government "works". It seems to provide more peace and joy to its people than any other form of government in the history of the world. From time to time, though, some people would rebel. Currently there is still 20-30 percent of the world not part of the KOG. These rebels, for now, are simply deported. You have been taught from the beginning that the society you enjoy now cannot sustain such rebellion so expulsion is the only option. Do you accept this?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, the KOG that you describe sounds good. I can see no practical reason to regect it. If it works, then it is better than any other social sistem that doesn't work. (Yet it depends on the definition of "works").
What I like about it is this part:
quote:If you made any mistakes they were explained to you and a method for correcting your mistake was shown to you. Punishment wasn't meted out except in cases of refusal to correct the mistakes or comply with official rulings.
I don't mind the goodnes, even if it comes from some aliens posing as some deity.
The story I believe fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. And we will never, in this life, have any way of knowing. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life."
I got rid of the "disgusts me" part too - I am not at all disgusted by atheists. If I believed that God is as some religions (including a lot of Christians) portray God, I would be an atheist, too.)
That is why my religion is a matter of faith - of choice. It isn't about miracles, or visions, or events at all. It is about choosing.
And I get why that is scary. You think that if I can choose based on nothing provable, then people with considerably less benign beliefs can choose, too. And that their choice is as valid.
But it isn't. They are only equal in the method of choosing a belief. In all they other ways of judging whether a belief is "good", those other beliefs fall short. And mine has the advantage of recognizing that it is a choice - and a choice that can only be made with complete freedom.
KarlEd,
At this point:
"He declared "The Era Of God's Kingdom on Earth" begun and that it would start at Vatican City and spread outward and that all within its borders would declare Christ the King or be expulsed."
I would start actively working against the Vatican. (I mean more than I do now.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You think that if I can choose based on nothing provable, then people with considerably less benign beliefs can choose, too. And that their choice is as valid.
But it isn't. They are only equal in the method of choosing a belief. In all they other ways of judging whether a belief is "good", those other beliefs fall short. And mine has the advantage of recognizing that it is a choice - and a choice that can only be made with complete freedom.
Don't you mean in all your ways of judging whether a belief is good, other beliefs fall short?
As a member of a religion that's beliefs you feel no doubt fall short, I find your comments to be in the same vein as KOM's.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Don't you mean in all your ways of judging whether a belief is good, other beliefs fall short?
As a member of a religion that's beliefs you feel no doubt fall short, I find your comments to be in the same vein as KOM's.
BQT, I don't, off the top of my head, know what your beliefs are. I haven't breyerchic's amazing and caring knack. I don't know enough about them to know what I think. And I find that guessing about an individuals beliefs based on the generally held beliefs of a certain group is inaccurate as often as not. If you want to have a discussion about them and where I feel they are right or wrong, I would be willing to, but I wouldn't presume to otherwise - unless your beliefs somehow imposed on the rights of others.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, before I read and maybe comment on the rest of the posts, I just want to add that my being "scared" is at a very ideological level. I won't run away if I ever were to meet you. There. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, sorry I'm not being very clear. I'm having a hard time putting my understanding if your post into words. The impression I'm getting is that you're saying your beliefs are objectively/universally/unarguably good. If that's not quite what you mean, feel free to clarify. If it is what you mean, then the problem I have with that is that it seems somewhat circular. You get to choose what to believe, and you choose what criteria define a good belief. Wouldn't they have to be the same, otherwise either your belief of criterion would have to change?
I'm still not doing well with the abstract explanation. Let me try an example. If I remember right, you are Catholic, but differ with the Vatican on several issues. One if these is sex outside marriage. You've stated in the past that it is not merely morally neutral for you to engage in this, but actually a moral positive. Official church doctrine and many believers think it is a morally negative action, such as Dagonee. It sounds like you consider his beliefs as less valid than yours because in judging whether the beliefs are good or not, believing in a God that is against sex outside marriage is not as a good belief as yours is. I just don't see that kind of belief as much different from any other religious belief that you are right and other people are less right, or wrong. To condemn others for thinking the same thing about their beliefs as your think about yours doesn't seem fair.
To answer your question, I'm Mormon, but for the sake of the example I thought it may be easier to compare with a member of the same religion. Also, I made a lot of statements above that may very well be not what you are saying. I'm only writing what I took your post to mean. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or anything, please feel free to add to, subtract from, and correct my interpretations.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
My belief (regarding sex) is that God gave us sexuality, that it is a good thing, that is is a powerful thing and that it should not be misused. I certainly don't think that sex outside of marriage is good for everybody or in every circumstance.
And I have some historical and doctrinal reasons for believing that we (the Catholic Church) got off the track regarding sex. And I have seen the harm that getting off the track - and the opposite-end-of-the-spectrum reaction to that - have caused.
But that is a detail. While it lines up with my core beliefs it is not one of them. My core beliefs - those that are not dependent on logic or evidence, those that I will choose (I pray) to hold onto in the face of aliens - are these:
God exists. God loves us. God wants us to love each other.
I guess beyond that it makes sense to add that I believe God is big. Cosmic big. Not a tribal God that can belong to one group. We describe God as a "super-human" because that is one way to describe/get-our-minds-around having a relationship with God, but that leads us to think that God is small. We can only deal with God in small bits. But God is big.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God?
I'd be curious as to what type of God they were saying they were. Are they essentially just advanced people that happened to create our planet and all the species on it? If that's the case, I think I'd like an explanation of how they did it and some sort of record keeping that shows the process. If they could provide these in a satisfactory way, I don't think I'd have too many qualms. Beyond that, I don't know. There are so many different conceptions of God and each would need different proofs to convince me.
KarlEd- I think I would accept it. In your scenario, they have great wisdom that I do not possess. If, as you suggest, this was made evident to me time and time again, I would accept their word that the society could not currently handle rebellion. I would also hope that it was soon able to do so.
Also, if you don't already, you should write science fiction KarlEd. Awesome scenarios. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I'd be curious as to what type of God they were saying they were. Are they essentially just advanced people that happened to create our planet and all the species on it?
Now I'm curious: Hou many types of deities do you (all of you) think there are/might be? [Here the atheists might come up with more "(im)possible types" than those devout to a unique deity. ]
posted
Well, that brings us back to the common question, "Just what IS a god, anyway?" If you're immortal, are you a god? What if you're omnipotent? What if you've made a universe or two, or even this universe?
The Western conception of "god" now includes concepts of moral authority and/or omni-omnience -- the idea that any god you can understand or comprehend must not, by definition, be a real god -- that would be considered unusual by our ancestors.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The Western conception of "god" now includes concepts of moral authority and/or omni-omnience -- the idea that any god you can understand or comprehend must not, by definition, be a real god -- that would be considered unusual by our ancestors.
One question for those agreeing with this definition: If, by definition, that god cannot be understood or comprehended (by Humans), then what about those who claim that they’ve got some message from the deity? Are they all lying? And of course, what is the use of such incomprehensible deity? (Ok, that wasn't just one question…)
posted
I think that Jasmine presents an interesting case study in how people perceive deity, but I think it's a bit different than what we're talking about. Nobody is talking about a God that is really a people-eating hell demon.
If such a God were said to be real, I would like to think I would fight against Him/Her since it does not line up with my own moral compass. However I am a human full of my own weaknesses and I think it's possible that I would react as Conner initially did and choose to stay by her because of the joy she made me feel.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think that the difference between a people-eating demon and how some people (not necessaily any of you) perceive God, is less than the difference between the tribal Zeus-on-steroids way some people perceive God and what I think (I mean believe) is the reality.
Go ahead. Parse that. I dare ya. (Rivka, at least my syntax is scary.)
Trying again: I think that the way a lot of people think of God is closer to Jasmine than it is to what I think of as (I mean believe is) God.
posted
Well, it wasn't so much the people eating or free-will aspect of it that I was thinking of as it was the question of how much we can trust our senses-both for believing in God or accepting undeniable proof of His existance.
It really seems like the alien scenario, except there is an element of mind control involved. However, Conner is exempt from that, and it's his situation that is even scarier than anyone else's.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: This thread is starting to remind me a bit of Jasmine in the latter half of Angel Season 4.
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think that Jasmine presents an interesting case study in how people perceive deity, but I think it's a bit different than what we're talking about. Nobody is talking about a God that is really a people-eating hell demon.
If such a God were said to be real, I would like to think I would fight against Him/Her since it does not line up with my own moral compass. However I am a human full of my own weaknesses and I think it's possible that I would react as Conner initially did and choose to stay by her because of the joy she made me feel.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the way a lot of people think of God is closer to Jasmine than it is to what I think of as (I mean believe is) God.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: It really seems like the alien scenario, except there is an element of mind control involved. However, Conner is exempt from that, and it's his situation that is even scarier than anyone else's.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't really see why a diety would create a race of beings for the sole reason of deceiving them.
How many humans have children JUST so they can teach them lies?
1) Why would a deity exist, in the first place? 2) Why is an analogy with Humans relevant?
A.
1: This is not relevant to what I was saying. I'm assuming there IS a creator of the human race.
2: People are giving "What if God turned out to be an ALIEN? A mean SOB? I am simply trying to identify a viable motive for why an empowered individual would have such immature backward moral codes.
The aliens in page 11 are even stupid enough to introduce religion without any sort of concensus as how it should introduced.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to number 2, I don't believe power due to advanced technology is necessarily an indicator of moral maturity.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: In response to number 2, I don't believe power due to advanced technology is necessarily an indicator of moral maturity.
Perhaps not, but when was the last time you played with a GI Joe? Typically as you grow older a cheap thrill such as stealing candy from a baby becomes at best immoral, at worst just boring.
Isn't it likely the minds capable of coming up with an aparatus for space travel would view humanity in much the same way? I suppose if space travel was stumbled upon and was actually much easier then we thought then we risk having aliens who share the same potential we do for mischief and good works.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the difference between a people-eating demon and how some people (not necessaily any of you) perceive God, is less than the difference between the tribal Zeus-on-steroids way some people perceive God and what I think (I mean believe) is the reality.
Go ahead. Parse that. I dare ya.
I take the challenge:
code:
<parsing> <facts> a) there are (or might be) "people-eating demons", or at least one of them b) "some people (not necessaily any of you) perceive God" in some specific (unspecified) manner. c) "some people perceive God" in a "tribal Zeus-on-steroids way". d) you (i.e. kmbboots) have some specific belief about what "the reality" is. </facts>
<statements on the facts> 1) There is a difference between a) and b). 2) There is a difference between c) and d). </statements>
<meta-statements (on the statements)> MS): kmbboots thinks that the difference in 1) is less than the difference in 2) </meta-statements>
</parsing>
<analyzing>
<variables> b) and d) contain references to unspecified information, therefore we introduce the variables: V1) = the way some people perceive God (in b) V2) = what kmbboots thinks about what reality is (in d) </variables>
<deductions> D-i (From 1) : As the two facts are not directly comparable, we must assume that the unspecified specific manner in b) (i.e. V1) is not “we perceive God as a people-eating demon”. D-ii (From 2) : As there is only one “unknown” in 2) it follows that V2) is not “I think (believe) that God is some kind of Zeus-on- steroids, just like the way of (my) tribal ancestors.” </deductions>
<constants> For further simplification of the analysis, we pose the two constants: C1) = “we perceive God as a people-eating demon” C2) = “I think (believe) that God is some kind of Zeus-on-steroids, just like the way of (my) tribal ancestors.” </constants>
<formalization>
<restrictions> R1 (from D-i): V1 is not C1 R2 (from D-ii): V2 is not C2 R3 (from MS): [V1 – C1] < [V2 – C2], where “[ …]” stands for “absolute value”. </restrictions>
<reasoning> V1 and V2 take values in a multidimensional space:SEP (the space of the English phrases). We can easily define “non coincidence” by direct observation. Therefore, the restrictions R1 and R2 are relevant. Yet, the vastness of SEP makes R1 and R2 really weak.
Then, in order to talk of “differences” between such quantities (e.g. [V1 – C1] and [V2 – C2]), we must define some concept of “distance”. So the relevance o R3 depends on that definition.
<final conclusion> Given the weakness of R1 and R2, and the missing definition to give relevance to R3, the conclusion is that “It’s all just a matter of interpretations”. </final conclusion> </reasoning>
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't really see why a diety would create a race of beings for the sole reason of deceiving them.
How many humans have children JUST so they can teach them lies?
1) Why would a deity exist, in the first place? 2) Why is an analogy with Humans relevant?
A.
1: This is not relevant to what I was saying. I'm assuming there IS a creator of the human race.
2: People are giving "What if God turned out to be an ALIEN? A mean SOB? I am simply trying to identify a viable motive for why an empowered individual would have such immature backward moral codes.
1) Wait, are you talking about the “Angel Universe”? You’ll have to excuse my ignorance because I’m not “up to date” with the watching. If not, then what are you talking about? What scenario? What context?
2)You mean you’ve never had those “ant-colony-in-a-transparent-box” things? Curiosity is the most powerful intellectual drive of the Humans. I’d even say it is the most powerful intellectual drive, period. So it could apply to non-human-like deities also. What do you think?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The aliens in page 11 are even stupid enough to introduce religion without any sort of concensus as how it should introduced.
The point of the “what if” alien scenario on the page 11 is their claim that the reason behind the eradication of religion is the fact that they have introduced it in the first place, and that the knowledge level of the Humans makes it now obsolete for the intended purposes (imposing moral values to the early Humans). Would such a claim, and the proofs that they present, make a difference in your system of (religious) beliefs? [Again, just restating the question.]
B) Tribal, alien, super Zeus type God a lot of people believe is God
C) What Kate (not just Kate, of course) believe God is.
edit: that little pointy thing is supposed to be an arrow.
edit again: Why I think the scenarios where we are talking about a B-like God are irrelevant to my faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thing, could anyone explain what "Jasmine type deity" means? I'm one of those that didn't watch Angel before, and I don't mind spoilers. Thanks.
posted
your scenario scared me, karled, though i can't say precisely why. when i come to terms w/ it, i'll have more to say Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
And Tom, I don't think "my" infinity is bigger. I think it is infinitly bigger!
I don't think it is mine. I am hardly the only person who thinks this. But I do think that we fall into the "blind man with the elephant trap". We can't comprehend infinity, so we look at bits of it. We describe certain parts of it. This gives the impression to others that God is only the bits. We ourselves fall into the habit of thinking that way.
If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be thinking about God as tribal. An infinite God couldn't be! If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be having conversations about aliens proving or disproving God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: One more thing, could anyone explain what "Jasmine type deity" means? I'm one of those that didn't watch Angel before, and I don't mind spoilers. Thanks.
A.
Angel spoilers-Like, it spoils the entire series. Don't read if you plan on watching it. You've been warned. . . . Really, it spoils seasons 1-4. Stop if you don't want to have it spoiled. . . . . Jasmine is the name for an arguably evil Higher Power being who doesn't share the other Powers That Bes' hands-off humanity philosophy. She engineered almost every major event in seasons 1-4 of Angel in order to be born on Earth. Every major character had the most defining moments of their lives manipulated by Jasmine in order to lead them to where she needed them to be. She gave some of them the illusion of choice, for others it was events that happened to them.
After she comes to Earth, anyone who hears her speak or sees her enters a state of personal bliss and worship of her. Peace ensues. It's kind of a 2nd coming type scenario (even proceeded by a rampaging beast, destruction in which the wicked are destroyed, and hell-fire) except instead of God coming to earth, it's a hell demon. The only way to see her for the maggot faced hell demon she really is, is to get your blood contaminated with hers. I can't describe how creepy it was to see how everyone worshipped her, I thought they did a pretty good job with that. You've really just got to watch it.
The downsides are that she consumes people and people have no free will to oppose her. Plus sides are everyone is full of joy and there is world peace. Not everyone is fooled by the enchantment though. There is one character who supports what she is doing, knowing full well everything that is going on. That to me was kind of the crux of one of the major moral dilemas in the season. He made his choice to fight for her, knowing full well that she was eating and enslaving people because he thought the end result was worth it. No more wars or murders, starvation or sickness, etc. It really was quite a good scenario, especially for TV. . . . . . End Spoilers
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQingTian, I think you've made a good job. It not only gave me an idea of what were others talking about, but also made me try harder to get "up to date" with the episodes. Thanks.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
