Max Singularity is (again) declared to be heretic and traitor

(Arrendis) #62

The short answer is ‘yes’. It is also misleading and incomplete.

The longer answer requires acceptance of the axiomatic nature of the concept of ‘God’—capital ‘G’, as opposed to the concept of ‘a god’, small ‘g’.

‘A god’ is one among many, a kind of immortal progenitor people, separate and distinct from humanity, but each one limited in their own way. They might be supreme in their specific bailiwick—a god of war will always defeat a god of healing in combat—but eclipsed by another in other matters. Our god of war, for example, may be far less of a painter than the god of healing, even though neither holds sway over that particular facet of human existence.

‘God’, in contrast, is axiomatically omnipotent. God is able to do anything, at any time. To not be capable of performing a specific task is to be other than God. Thus, axiomatically, God can create ‘it’, no matter what ‘it’ is.

The rest of the answer, once again, turns on the axiomatic nature of God: God can lift ‘it’, no matter what ‘it’ is. So the rock in our example would appear to be something that cannot exist. But of course, God can create it. So how then do we get to a condition where God cannot lift it?

The answer, of course, is that axiomatically, God can do anything—including abrogating His own status as God. At that point, the rock cannot be lifted. Nor—at this point—can God return to being God, lest He be able to lift the rock. This, of course, is fine, as because—again, at this point—this entity is no longer God, and so no longer axiomatically required to be capable of restoring the Godhead.

So, the more complete answer is: ‘Yes. Once. And in doing so, God ceases to be God. He’s just some schlub named God.’

(Jurius Doctor) #63

That’s an interesting way of looking at it, but let me push your argument farther…

Who, then, has the power to restore the Godhead to the now-schlub named God?

We do. So long as there is faith, and that faith rests in God, however brief and legitimate said abrogation may be, God returns to Godhood.

So then, can it be said that there is a stronger fundamental law writ by all sentient beings of faith that supercedes God? That the one true law in reality is that God is and will always be God, and his laws absolute, because we say so.

(Arrendis) #64

This is a spurious claim without evidence. Proof, please.

The refuge of parents and managers who have no actual reasons for their actions and demands, everywhere.

(Jurius Doctor) #65

Spurious? Well, that’s an interesting problem with reflections on the divine; it’s difficult to raise proof. Though one might say that’s the antithesis of faith. How has it been argued? “Science is corrosive to religious belief?”

That claim is also spurious, because I am a scientist and yet also True Amarr, and devout.

I’ll return the ball to your court - what do you believe (or suspect) happens when God abrogates the Godhead?

Also, your statement that my words echo “the refuge of parents and managers who have no actual reasons for their actions and demands” is a mirror of your statement for the purpose of God. To legitimize that refuge.

It’s justifications all the way down, I’m sure.

(Buoytender Bob) #66

I fully endorse the killing of those people of AmarrIan blood by their fellow Amarrians. Is there something the rest of New Eden’s residents can do to facilitate and encourage this outpouring of a tangible expression of faith and devotion by both sides?

(Jev North) #67

This argument only really works in the way you’ve posed it if you conflate the proper name of God and the nature of God. That God (as God is) could create a rock God (as whatever remains of God after abrogation) can not lift might be true, but not, one assumes, the intent of the original question.

(Arrendis) #68

What do I believe happens? Nothing. I don’t believe in the existence of God. I also don’t actively disbelieve in the existence of God. Either position is an assertion of knowledge for which we have no evidence, and which cannot be inferred from the observed data.

Thus, the entire ‘can God make a rock so blah blah blah’ question is not one that falls into the range of the scientific method, but rather, philosophical models. Philosophy’s a great way to keep the mind nimble, of course, because anyone with any understanding of it can argue at least four contradictory positions in any debate, but there’s no belief involved.

Philosophically, what would occur were God to abrogate the Godhead is… there’d be no God. Any other repercussions would require evidence that the existence of God has some ongoing effect. If God being God does nothing in and of itself, then God ceasing to be God would do nothing, as well. If God ceasing to be God would have an effect, then we should see systems whose current function requires the existence of God. And we don’t.

(Samira Kernher) #69

Instead of asking if God can do these things, or how He would do them, one should ask why He would. If the answer to that question is, “no reason,” then there is equally no reason to debate whether or not He could.

(Arrendis) #70

Possibly not, but when attempting to explain whether or not an axiomatically omnipotent entity is capable of doing something, and how it would accomplish this seemingly contradictory task, sometimes it’s necessary to demonstrate that the question itself must allow for nuance.

(Jev North) #71

Mm, quite.

I like working from the other end - what does a “yes” or “no” answer to the question mean, anyway, besides that the common-sense definition of “omnipotence” is pointless?

(Arrendis) #72

My apologies, Jev, Mr. Doctor… new developments require that I STFU now.

(Jev North) #73

Quite alright. I’ve just realized I’ve gotten involved in a theological discussion on the IGS, however frivolously, and should probably break off for a hot shower and a hard drink…

(Ilan Ardishapur) #74

The path I walk is consistent with scripture, those who view the Udorian half-breed as a legitimate heir to the Throne are the ones with poor footing. Same goes for you, a sock puppet who defends this heretic.

The pompous fool Singularity is a leader of a blasphemous cult, no political maneuvering or pleasant words will change that. It is a blatant fact.

(Ilan Ardishapur) #75

I take it you’ve just found out this Jurius fellow is somehow aligned with your ‘Space Pope’ and you shouldn’t be making his efforts harder, hm?

(Samira Kernher) #76

God gave the Emperor of Amarr the breath of authority, His voice. Emperor Heideran VII raised up the Tash-Murkon Family as a Royal House, and this status was upheld by the Theology Council in the Book of Records, cementing House Tash-Murkon as legitimate claimants by Scripture.

Consistent with Scripture you are not.

(Corraidhin Farsaidh) #77

Watching folks argue over who’s interpretation of their imaginary friend is correct is just strange. Anyone got some popcorn?

(Arrendis) #78

Any responses offered on the validity of any section of Amarr orthodoxy would constitute a violation of me shutting the frell up. However, as a general statement, I don’t give a bag of fedo farts whether a member of Iron Armada associates with Max or the Sixth Empire, or, really what 99.99999999999% of Amarr society thinks about anything.

So, to once again quote the Gallente… lèche moi où je merde.

And now, back to my regularly-scheduled shutting the frell up.

(Jurius Doctor) #79

I will do as I rarely do, and purse my lips to caress the Gallente language.

Seulement si vous netoyez d’abord.

(Lursan Ayin) #82

I say we erase the titles, for titles give way to aspirations of high power and grandeur which is an effigy and mockery of the godhood that our holy Lord possesses. Let not the young child of the empire grow up ignorant of the scriptures, hearing it only through preachings and half-baked interpretations. Let no man, no woman, no soul claim more right to the honor of preaching the lords holy word than another of their kin, let those of true Amarrian blood feel no shame in speaking the words of the scriptures for they are not “Worthy” or “Ordained”. We are the holy people! Let no titles stand in the way of the Word, the Word of our Lord!

(Bjorn Tyrson) #83

For the right price I could probably get you some trees from heaven… not sure if that would help your case or not. but it could be done.