during this discussion with whitewolf I and we came up with a universal definition of a god and the requirements to be/become one. read and discuss/object/do whatever else p.s. belijvolk is whitewolf belijvolk: what is a god? Avatar: a being who's desires are not limited by dreams belijvolk: so there are some whose desires are limited? Avatar: no, I meant that the fulfillment of desires is virtual / in dreams, but they never become true. If all desires are fulfilled then you are a god. but a god can also be a tiny god only for himself. it is somewhat better that if others also would think so. someone's desire may be to get drubk every day. and if he does, he's no god in my oppinion Avatar: desires which are thought to be impossible belijvolk: so some desires are good, and some arent.... the ones that would be considered impossible to achieve are the good ones, as you say? belijvolk: (by good, i mean working in the definition of god) Avatar: no. I don't think that terms good/bad can be used. they are too relative and human made. a god should be universal. imho the desires which would make you a god must also help in the advancement of your species belijvolk: so what would help our species advance, in your opinion? Avatar: for example. a desire to be immortal, a desire to travel to the stars, a desire tocreate beautiful music which would inspire a generation of artists Avatar: social, technical, spiritual ... there are many ways to imporve ourselves Avatar: *technological belijvolk: many have these ambitions. belijvolk: few succeed in achieving them. Avatar: but few fulfill them and that is what counts. the fulfillment of our dreams belijvolk: is there anything more than pure desire that makes a god, then? belijvolk: (speaking in terms of abilities) Avatar: the ability to transform the desire to physical reality Avatar: that's all Avatar: a god must not be by definition all knowing if he doesn't desire that Avatar: that goes for all powerful and eternal also belijvolk: a drunkard transforms his desire into reality. belijvolk: he does not contribute to society, for he is a drunkard. belijvolk: and that may be good, since we do not need contributions of drunkards Avatar: if his desires would be other than to get drunk then he wouldn't be a drunkard Avatar: or he lacks the ability to be not a drunkard and then he is not a god also belijvolk: his desire (to be drunk) helps us advance by keeping him quiet and away. belijvolk: no? Avatar: no - it doesn't help to advance. only to not slowen the pace. besides one drunkard doesn't affect all socienty - only a very limited population of people belijvolk: how do you know that a specific inspiration will be a stride forward, not backwards Avatar: I/we don't . but the results would show belijvolk: so only time can tell that a god is a god? Avatar: i.e. bringing the inspiration into physical reality Avatar: I think that noone can. time is only a vector in our n-dimension universe belijvolk: so a god will never be recognized, at least not in his lifetime? Avatar: an interesting situation actually - being a god and not realising it Avatar: why not - Albert Einstein was belijvolk: Albert Einstein was jewish, no? Avatar: he was belijvolk: if so he didnt worship himself Avatar: since when do you have to worship all gods? do you worship Shiva or Ra, or Thor? Avatar: why worship at all Avatar: but you can admire Avatar: worshipping is putting yourself in a slave position belijvolk: he didnt accept himself as a god. like i dont believe ra is a real deity. belijvolk: so to be god you must also be free, not to be a slave? Avatar: in a universe where noone can say who is a god and who isn't, that is not important Avatar: a slave usually can not fulfill his desires Avatar: because his freedom to act is limited belijvolk: he is free to try to escape, no? Avatar: yes. that is a desire he can fulfill Avatar: and if that is fulfilled, he is not a slave anymore belijvolk: he may have the potential to escape, but may not want to. Avatar: if he being a slave can do something that is his desire and that desire becoming reality betters (imporves imho is not the right word) the world then he can be a god. at least imo :-\ Avatar: I can not think of a real world example though belijvolk: slaves that built pyramids made a contribution. Avatar: the slaves didn't - they were merely a tool to the mind that governed it Avatar: architect in this case belijvolk: if all egyptian slaves (or a sufficient portion of them) went free, there would be no one to build the monuments. belijvolk: a pyramid is a rather simple architectural structure, since it is most stable. Avatar: try to build it beforehand and then say it's simple Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! it's very precise in it's simplicity and it also sits on the central axis of the world. forgot how the right name for it was Avatar: and as for the slaves - the mastermind 's desire is to have someone to bild the pyramid Avatar: in this case - the slaves Avatar: Alexander of Macedony was very close to being a god. He wanted to conquer all of the known world, that was his desire. And he would have done it if not for his home-sick soldiers (he merely had left 2/3 of India) By conquering most of it, he brought civilization and culture into many crude and barbaric places and societies. belijvolk: a pyramid is most stable structure. it is harder to erect a building via post and lintel with columns. belijvolk: be careful with what you call barbaric, Avatar: yes, I should belijvolk: besides, there were many with that mania of conques. like napoleon. belijvolk: rome. Avatar: but nonthereless he brought higher culture belijvolk: if you consider greek culture above indian culture belijvolk: (western mindset... tsk-tsk-tsk) Avatar: hmmm hes. western it is. but the majority of the lands were crude anyway Avatar: and that particular conquest brought long term consequences which allowed the social evolution Avatar: in this case - time did tell belijvolk: however he did not achieve his goal fully Avatar: about pyramid building. there is a saying. ingenious in it's simplicity Avatar: no, he didn't belijvolk: so by your definition he is not a god. Avatar: and I noted that in the begining Avatar: unfortunately no belijvolk: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! belijvolk: einstein was a god? Avatar: see my quote [ Avatar: Alexander of Macedony was very close to being a god. ] belijvolk: (pardon. *blush) Avatar: one his desire has changed our world. to me he is Avatar: but I don't worship him, only admire Avatar: there wouldn't be possible satellite communications for instance if not for him belijvolk: what was his goal? Avatar: I'm not sure. but it must have been to have clarity Avatar: in his desired subject belijvolk: well, did he achieve clarity for himself? belijvolk: did he achieve clarity for us? Avatar: I'm not him therefore I don't know. as for us - yes - in particular areas. before him scientists had invented aether - a mistical substance in order to explain different happenings in the observed universe. Einstein clarified the situation and got rid of that mistical substance. Avatar: never observed/never witnessed/never proved (as for the christian god) , but scientists thought that it must be (as religious folk think of their god today) because things behaved weird. Now they didn't behave weird - they behaved as they should Avatar: because we had a better idea/clarity of what the universe is like belijvolk: better idea, but not a full vision. Avatar: yes. but advancement is a motion not a goal Avatar: evolution for that instance also belijvolk: so, if we dont have a full vision, neither did einstein. Avatar: I see where you are going no, he didn't have a full vision on our universe Avatar: but who says that there is only one universe. there can always be a fuller vision Avatar: a potential fuller vision belijvolk: so if he didnt have the full vision that he was searching for, he was not a god. Avatar: no - just an idol then Avatar: *laughs Avatar: you destroyed my god!!! Avatar takes his barbaric war axe and points it at belijvolk * Avatar laughs again belijvolk: you give up the god easier than definition of him? Avatar: yes. because a definition by definition is universal. Avatar: if he is not a god, then I should not call him a such. I can still admire him for the higher level of clarity he brought though Avatar: just as you did in my perception towards him and my definition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! belijvolk: so who is god, then? Avatar: a being who's desires are not limited by reality and he has the ability to transfor them into our physical universe and by doing so imporoving the state of the overall advancement of his species or any other species which is at the same level as his specie would be/is Avatar: that is if he is the last living being of his specie left belijvolk: is there a god impersonated? belijvolk: (has there ever been one?) Avatar: somewhere in our discussion I told that noone can really be 100% who is a god and who isn't , because our universe is such and there can potentially always be a higher level of clarity. and therefore a higher intelect may not agree with my conclusions. belijvolk: do you believe anyone who has the goal that would advance us ever reaches it fully? Avatar: here we/I have a problem. because my definition requires that all desires must be fulfilled. If he has a only desire to advance us at a particular level and if he has no other desires that he has not fulfilled Avatar: then yes Avatar: (the desires also must meet the conditions of the betterment (sorry for use of that word, but I like it) Avatar: even if webster doesn't agree with mee *sneers belijvolk: it would seem that a correct step in advancement is the one made towards a larger goal. belijvolk: the larger the goal, the more steps we can make, but the goal is never reached fully (concept of a limit). Avatar: I think that you are right here. but that larger goal may not be known belijvolk: einstein had it--- fullest clarity. belijvolk: and his steps were made in right direction, and there were many. Avatar: and only a being having a higher level of clarity can connect it to some higher goal Avatar: maybe he did, I do not know Avatar: (about that clarity) belijvolk: so, the one who will advance us will never reach his goal fully. belijvolk: the only goals that can be fully reached in their original consumption are simple ones, like finnishing the bottle. Avatar: he would if his goal is some particular level of advancement Avatar: for instance - hyperspace belijvolk: he wouldnt reach it fully... human nature. Avatar: yes, but then it would be another goal and another desire, no? Avatar: a desire has to be particular not hypothetical (sp) belijvolk: look, i want to step on mars. (suppose i have the scientific education necessary to make some further advances). how far will i get to actually doing it? Avatar: still - if Alexander of Macedony had conquered all of the then known world and he wouldn't know in his life (let's imagine it) that there are not any other places to conquer, he would be a god to his people, but a being with a higher level of clarity knowing of another continent what Alexander isn't aware of knows that he is not a god by my definition, because Alexander's goal is to conquer all of the world belijvolk: how hard was it for Alex to notice there is land further than his country's borders?! Avatar: belijvolk - Alexander was only 32 when he had almost completed his goal (and killed). It's all dependent of you and how strong your desire is and your ability to make it real Avatar: I said to imagine that Avatar: of course he knew that he hadn't reached his goal belijvolk: the further he went the more chances he had of being killed in combat. the world as he knew it would never be his fully. belijvolk: besides, it is hard to hold what you conquer. Avatar: he had a chance to be killed in the first battle also. I said in my little poem that life is dice belijvolk: well, the conclusion that has to be reached is that there were no gods in our history (lets not admit a drunkard as one). belijvolk: on that i shall leave you belijvolk: you may go off and curse out socrates who told us to question everything Avatar: yes. thank you for the discussion. it was very interesting Avatar: bye belijvolk: good day, sir. * Avatar bows
Who defines advancment? To some, an advancment in our society could be to end the currect US government, and erect a total dictatorship, with all industry geared towards military, with goals to take over the earth. Or that we revert back to living off the land and let large portions of our population starve and die off, thereby stabilizing out ecology, and baring any major catastrophes (asteroids, supernovaes, etc..) have our ancestors live as long as the earth is stable. "Advancement of our species" is a fuzzy phrase and not quite adequate. Why? How does this advance our society? It lengthens the amount of time that humans exist, but it does not garentee the propogation of our society, our mimes, anything, it just makes our presence wider spread. How does immortality help someone? Any changes to a human to make them able to live a longer, indefintly longer, life, would also make them inhuman. It's theorized that the human mind can only handle about 1000 years of living, before it is no longer the same human... Does this invalidate your god when they reach an age where they are no longer themselves? The music one... Music is a key to peoples emotions, but it isn't a measure of our advancment. It is a recreatonal activity, are you saying that when artists are payed to create beautiful things, that our society is advanced, and prosperous enough to have the ability to support people that only create items that have no practical use or value? Dreams are individualistic. Whats our societies dream as a whole? In the US I believe it's to make the most money you can before you die, become famous, and spit in everyone elses face. Our collective dream may be to be the most obviously prosperous nation in the world, and to put our greedy fingers into everyone elses business. Does our government trying to acheive this goal, and for the most part suceeding, make us all gods for electing them? We reliezed our desires as a whole, and moved towards the advancment of them.' Consider the cumulative effect of the drunkards. One drunkard effects a few people. Each added together create a nationwide problem with drunkeness, drunk driving, etc. They spend billions on this problem yearly through prvention, court systems, and jailing. Not to mention the man hours lost due to greiving, hangovers, and human error. That makes it a society effecting event, though it does't fit your definition. The drunkards desires aren't to disrupt civilization, their desire is to get drunk. Are you speaking miracles, such as instantaneous projection of an idea into a physical reality, or are you speaking of someone, anyone, have an idea, say to build a boat, then they go buy the wood, cut it into lengths, cunstruct their masterpeice, and step back, and feel the glow of accomplishment. Are they a god? Is noah a god? Could the bibile be a collecton of stories about gods, a polytheistic religion based on the accomplishments of ordinary men, turning themselves into more then men, for what they do? Noah built his ark in the face of an impending flood. Theres evidence such a flood DID occur in the distant past. Could one man ahead of his time recognize this fact, and make somthing of it? (paragraph there is speculation) I don't worship any god at this point in time, but could worship be the ultimate form of admiration? Worshipping has nothing to do with slavery, your not at the beck and call of the god, your just admiring their greatness as a god, letting them recognize that you recognize them. A slave who does not escape, so that he does not make life harder for his fellows through his selfish act can be admired as a god, such as you admire Einstein as one. How? His contribution change how 1% of the population view and study the world, most people don't care about it, a lot don't even know who einstien was. Poor avatar Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You proved to yourself, not the rest of us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mr Cat, God created the dinosaurs. God Killed the dinosaurs. God created man. Man killed god. Man create dinosaurs. - Ian in jurassic park, I think it applies to what you said.
fafnir665 Hello, Man killed 'God'? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. How does man kill a being without limitation? In Jurassic park, hollywood spliced some dinosaur DNA (residing in the gut of a fossilized mosquito) with some frog DNA; thus, creating hybrid species. What does this have to do with a being without limitation? -CC
well, the dinosaur part was superflous, but that line was in the book too, so it's critons philosphy... I just thought it was an interesting quote that applies to the thought that god is just an idea, not an actual being.
I know this isn't my thread... but could we try and keep it in line with avatars initial post? It could be an interesting convo if kept on topic.
Fafnir665 Ahhh I getz it (man can kill his own idea no matter how unlimited it may be). Thanks for z clarification.
I thought of advancement that affects all or the majority of developed societies on the planet. for instance that same conquest of Alexander of Macedony. It "advanced" many undeveloped cultures for hundreds of years in the future with the help of greek culture. social, technological or spiritual evolution simple - the society has more chance of surviving and if it doesn't , then we still have a chance for a new society / civilization rising ahhh. this is something of my personmal phylosophy. you can trash the music if you really want, but I think that the creation of beauty (or what we think it is or must be) is a part of our spiritual evolution. Art is also a inner desire to create beauty and it also shows how aware we are on our surroundings. Take cavemen for instance. When the paintings in tose caves in France were discovered scientists imediately thought that the man was not so primitive as they thought it was. He was more aware of the surroundings, he was capable of expressing it, he did it (apparently) without being paid for it my god thingie definition requests that the desires are not regressive. if they are, then they have nothing to do with becoming a god_complete. and regressive they can be cultural / social, technological and spiritual. but they desires are yet again not benifiting their culture/society , civilization yes. I thought exactly of the latter kind of creation. but the definition as unrealistic as it may be requests that all desires are fulfilled and all or most of them help in the advancement of our species. we have had no gods , but in theory the definition is valid. if not now, then maybe millions of years in the future or also never at all imho worshipping is admitting ones disability. Remember what Nietzsche said about teachers and students that you are a bad student if you do not become better than your teacher please see again: evolution/advancement/ betterment (I know it's not a valid word) of our species oh? but nonthereless thanx to him satellite communications are possible and I think you can't neglect the impact this has on our whole civilization p.s. please point out if I have left smthing unansvered. I was totally tired and slept for a few hours and I'm not yet fully awake :m:
? ! In human terms, advancement means exactly that. As for advancement of culture, and other things you mentioned, only time can tell (not you!), as was mentioned in the discussion. Please show reference. We're interested in all interesting theories. To you personally, I can only tell, that this theory can not be proven as long as we dont have a human that lived that long; which, therefore, means this is only a hypothesis, and has little substance. What?! Are you saying that art, music, and architecture are not a sign of development of human brain? Not even a sign of wealth? Arts were used to measure prosperity and advancement ever since ancient Greece; after the Dark Ages, we decided Greeks were right. Well, according to Avatar's definition, we trully are gods in this case; however, the full fulfillment of the dream is required, along with everyone's desire for the same goal in unison (in reality it isnt so, our goal isnt fully reached, there are conflicting interests). Also, if i recall correctly, the definition requires full fulfillment of all dreams. Here, you are bringing in Christianity which has a different definition of god, and also implies that Noah wasnt one. It is debatable that such a flood covered the WHOLE (im not yelling here) earth, and that Noah existed, along with his actions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The bible, however, mentions that Noah's full desire was for god to let all people live, and this desire wasnt completed. So no, Noah is not a god fitting definition on the table here. Well, Avatar's choice of words is actually perfect here. He did mention admiration of gods instead of worship. Worship does enslave, the Crusades are an example, along with jihad. To Avatar, Einstein was god. Also, dont underestimate Einstein's effect, he's a genius for a reason, you might want to do some research... My intention was to prove that no human fits Avatar's definition of a god, that the definition itself is at fault, and that we still have no clue what god is. I understand my thesis has little substance to back it, and to fully develop my arguments I would need another six hours of debating with Avatar. It was 3:30 am when the conversation had to be interrupted, I preferred sleep. Mr. Cat: All man-made concepts are limited in man's mind, in actual boundaries or worded definitions.
Thats YOUR definition. That definition may or may not be held by others, that was the point I was trying to make. It's not possible to say that advancements in those fields will advance society as a whole. For example, robotics has made it cheaper to produce items, because they take out the men's salaries that put the products together before the invention of robots. How does laying off all the people who held those jobs advance society? It is an advance in technology, but a backwards step in society. I would wager it is spiritually as well, at least for the people affected, which is pretty much everyone. The people who were layed off, until they find another job, are a strain on our economy, taking money from the government to survive. True. It increases the chance of surviving humans, it doesn't neccesarily help in any way our society. Where am I trashing music? I'm just stating a viewpoint. Music is an artform, more powerful then visual arts IMHO, because it's a direct tap into emotion, for a lor of people. Music can be used to control pace, moods, etc, but there are superflous forms of it. Someone who is paid to create beats that increase productivity (like the drummers on viking ships) are doing a survice to society. People who get paid to wave a little stick around in the air for the enjoyment of the people who can afford to attend aren't. Where? If the president desires that his family has the oil in afghanistan, and gets it, then uses it to produce more gasoline, and therefore lowers gas prices, he has helped society as a whole, or at least one major society, is he a god? That would be exactly what I said. Where do you get this information? Sources please. I didn't try to define it, you two did. I just said that you couldn't define what advancment for a society is, because of the different elements of the society. Read Without using your examples, I said the same thing. I only asked if I was correct in my speculation. That is why I tagged "specualtion" on the end of that paragraph.
Do you accept that infinity is not allowed to have an end? Infinity is bound by its definition to be infinite, and is limited in the sense that it is not allowed to have a boundary (paradoxical as it may seem, however, please try to follow).
whitewolf It appears your argument is based on the example that that 'Infinity' has a limitation... which is it cannot be 'finite'. If so, thats not a paradox. That's just what 'infinity' is not; however, I can accept this as a limitation IF you're defining 'limitation' as being a 'restriction'. Using the same logic against a 'being not subject to limitation', the actual limitation would be the 'being cannot be limited'? I would argue that such a being could choose to pretend it is subject to limitation; thus, the restriction of not being limited appears to be lifted no? -CC
