And I am not interested in taking apart every tiny thing, just because you will not see them in a bigger context. Because it is the context itself that takes each of your arguments apart. You want to go into more detail with single details, when you should be seeing every detail as one and every detail at once. (read * later for proper context)
However, as a human being, I could imagine the weight of being a deity, even if I cannot fathom the enormous infinite of this form of consciousness. I can imagine living thousands of years, just like I can imagine the fabric of reality. Impossibility is only what you impose on yourself. Just imagine the "unthinkable." The premise remains the same as the one I stated in the beginning, and it is absolute. This was before the OP redefined the terms of the argument, which you brought into this debate when it isn't even necessarily a subject of discussion.
With the realisation of Godness comes God's power, and with that, a surpassing of the human existence due to remembering
everything. Do you really think that we should limit ourselves (as God) to a being that only cared about the human existence more than any other? It's what you're asking me to do, the way you phrase your every possibility. And I won't lower my level of thinking to a subglobal one in such a context. Not even as a human being.
By the way, you didn't even answer my questions just now when I
was taking your bits apart while also trying to get you to see the details in the context of everything.
*A different style of thinking doesn't mean I don't adress your points. But if I did, which are the ones I didn't adress? How would you like me to adress them?
I'm sorry Ginny, but your claims are too big and too sweeping for how little you back them up and for how many logical and substantial inaccuracies you commit. You get so aggressive and so quickly. I don't even understand why. It feels like you're getting too emotional about this, for reasons I don't understand, and that doesn't exactly make me want to pursue the debate any longer.
However, since you prodded me to the point of irritation, I will address your confusing points one by one just this one time.
You are seeing this way too narrow. You want to endow humans with special abilities they can achieve of their own if they want to. Messing with this, as it is now in its complexity, you'd more likely make things worse. If you simply gave them knowledge they wouldn't learn from it. They'd stop to think (as most already have), stop being creative, and simply do the things they do because they've always done it. How would that make the human species better?
You should seriously consider quitting saying things like « you are seeing this too narrow » or « you're not taking into account the bigger context » when you're engaged in a philosophical discussion. It's just not a serious point to make. Always assume that the person
might have actually taken the bigger context into consideration, and then proceed from there. Don't begin by assuming people are dumb, this is not the right approach in philosophy.
You're saying I see things narrowly because I limit my view to humans, but this isn't even true. I initially suggested examples pertaining to humans, but nowhere did I say that I would limit myself to that or even apply those examples. I only meant to start a discussion. You're making the mistake of assuming that when someone puts something forward, they necessarily subscribe to it. Let me quote myself to make things crystal clear.
Of course I would in a certain sense "mess with the system as it is". It's true that, given the realisation that I am an omnipotent deity, I could also decide to do nothing, and leave things as they are. But why not consider "messing with the system" if it can improve the condition of beings and if the right checks and balances can be devised? Why not turn our world into something close to a Utopia that still preserves free will? Do you think this would inevitably imply changing the very essence of who we are as beings, making the whole undertaking of "improving the condition of beings" meaningless? Or do you think some changes can be made that would not result in essential change?
I spoke here of beings in general, not human beings only. And I do get that changing one aspect of a system could endanger the functioning of the whole system – I took that into account, mind you. Again, please stop assuming people are stupid, it's very irritating. My point was this:
if, as God, I have the attribute of omnipotence, it's a worthy question to ask whether I could not
at one and the same time change one aspect of the system
while preserving its equilibrium. Do you see what I mean? This was one of the fundamental questions I was wondering about! And I'm not even subscribing to this, I'm saying it's a worthy question to ask and discuss, nothing else. And it is a very big-picture question, which you didn't pick up on.
Well, people would continue to die, except not by murder. I could also make it so that nobody ever dies in car accidents anymore. Do you think this may bring about major disruptions in the system?
You see, you answer a mere « Yes » to what should have warranted a quite detailed response in view of the sweep and ferociousness of what you argued in the beginning. Don't just say yes.
Explain why making murder impossible would create a disruption in the system. It would be interesting to hear your viewpoint on this. I'm not opposed to you convincing me, but I must admit that
prima facie, I see no compelling argument in favour of not making murder impossible. So please detail your position if you want to have a real discussion on this. You don't come across at all like you want to discuss things. Even if you were to find a certain point of view abhorrent, you should still be open to discussion. Because you don't know if you're right.
To be a deity you have to think like a deity. You think like a human being, only thinking about itself and propagating its species. Do you really want to go back to the Utopia debate? Free will will always topple the system, any system, when its time has come.
This is a mere affirmation that has no value until you've actually laid out why. And I'm highly interested in the why, actually. I long to be edified by other people's points of view – but don't just affirm something that's not self-evident as if it were self-evident. Prophecies don't have the same weight as neatly laid out arguments that offer the other party the chance to counter them.
And I am not interested in taking apart every tiny thing, just because you will not see them in a bigger context. Because it is the context itself that takes each of your arguments apart. You want to go into more detail with single details, when you should be seeing every detail as one and every detail at once.
Besides finding the idea of « not being interested » very unphilosophical and borderline disrespectful when thus far I had been so polite, I must reiterate that what you're saying isn't true. There is not even any attempt at showing anything. And if I were you, I would consider changing my perspective on « single details ». The devil is in the details. Sure, the big picture is important, but if you want to make a difference you need to pay extreme attention to the details. They are what makes your view consistent. And there is nothing more difficult than making a big picture view consistent. You need the details for that. Don't despise them. As long as you despise them, I'm sorry to say that you are being philosophically immature.
I will stop here because I feel like I've made my point. I think you should do more work on these actual topics instead of sounding dismissive and arrogant about what people who've spent a lot of time thinking about these topics, and who have been nice to you, suggest as mere hypotheses. The tone you employ in these debates suggests more insecurity and ignorance than they suggest respect and a genuine desire to learn from other people.
