If I am able to, after death, perceive of a God as separate from me means it is on the same plane of existence as me, thus, would have a definable relationship with God in terms of that existence, which means, if we have an energy-connected relationship, then the laws of Physics apply. If the laws of Physics apply, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred.
The very act of dying and ascending/transcending/transferring/assimilating occurs by some process after death, and I believe myself to be God now, as a living thing, then it is possible that the energy of that would or could be transferred to myself upon Death, simply because religions and science have yet to define God. As strange as it seems, a closer analysis on the references to the actual word God in biblical context is not well-defined. It is referred to, but not defined; there are more instances of lords and satans and devils and demons than any real instance or words of God. This is a subject that requires another topic detailing the inadequacies of the definition of the word God by any religious text. Since I know that, since God is a concept we use as a species to refer to something that even religious texts cease to define and something Physicists may refer to, in secret, to any area or discovery of their work, then it does not exist because it has yet to be accurately defined, as the typical definition of it being in some way the totality of things is yet to be properly perceived and presented, let alone defined and understood.
So thus, because God does not exist, since it would in some way exist within words only, i.e., in any reference to it in any text or religious system, in order for one to be able to properly declare, or in the instance of Asimov, find a way to destroy this concept of God, one would need to first have knowledge of these systems. It is one thing to say that it does not exist if one refers to some concept of Truth that supercedes that of current religious texts, it would need to be conceded that even if it doesn't exist as a universal truth to everyone, people exist in some fashion, their beliefs and thoughts exist in some fashion, and their knowledge of these words exists in some fashion, so I, at least, interpret that the common ground that all faithful and those who keep and know specific words have in common are the words themselves, and their beliefs and definitions of these words themselves. As it is a part of their identity, spiritual label, and existence even if brought in and understood to not exist, that creates a common bond that, if one dies and maintains some level of sentience and unity of the self in death, would be evident to those outside of this system. This may seem like a difficult concept to grasp, but beliefs themselves exist because we ourselves in some way exist. So to destroy the system of this God figure would be to destroy the beliefs of those who in some way believe in this system. This would cause disruption of a developed, established system of belief; consider that even many Atheists, that many people across all spiritual paths have knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, and I can go into detail about how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all connected by belief in a somewhat tangible way, but I won't for the simplicity of this topic unless furthur elaboration is desired.
So Asimov's strategy wouldn't work as in order to properly destroy this Godhead, he would have to destroy any and all documents in which this information is contained first, and then would have to maintain sentience in order to destroy the beliefs left over by the people themselves (remember, you are a dead person in this situation), and remembering that energy is transferrable, that energy would go somewhere. To declare oneself as God would then tie oneself into that system by those particular words and that energy, if they still believed in God, would then transfer to whereever that word is located, but even then that would require some assumptions that letters exist. In order to end up in that situation, axioms about what does and does not exist would need to be defined to furthur this definition.
Since I operate under the assumption that this God does not exist, and I believe this and am not defined by those religions, if a scenario such as the one you described in your original post was to take place. In other words, it does not exist because it is yet to be defined; something can and does exist independently of religious definition, and using the word God would limit that definition to anything that uses or refers to that word with any sort of permanence.
In other words, in order for this to be a true scenario, then the soul must exist in some fashion to do things in this manner.
One can also have leeway and say that, in a more complex scenario, assume that each person can define what God is, or is not, for themselves; as this is an Atheist forum, most here believe that God does not exist, which puts God in a state of nonexistence anyway, while others believe it does exist, they're referring to the same thing; as each person's beliefs concerning this concept are different in some way, this brings it to the quantum state of things and is thus reminiscent of the Schrodinger's Cat. I just assume that the word God is a convenient way for existence to sort out who believes what according to how or by what standard one judges the "end" of things, the totality and ultimate fate of things. If I was Life and I wanted to sort humans, using this word would be the way to do it.
We apply religion to space and time because we find it convenient.
So if this entity you describe exists, it would be a moral call about whether to destroy it or declare myself to be God to transfer that energy from them to myself becaus I trust myself more, or destroy their beliefs in the manner Asimov described, thus causing God to exist by some moral basis, rendering Atheism and the idea that morality is independent of God wrong.
See why religion is tricky?
I would declare myself God because I'm an asshole and think that if I was put in that scenario, it should be mathematically defined first. Let them learn math and figure it out.
Making any move in reaction to finding out this information would cause it to exist in the first place, and to define it by the axioms of my own existence.
So upon furthur thinking, my defining myself as being God would only be withn the scenario of it existing, so this is nearly purely hypothetical.
Because this scenario wouldn't happen in the first place. For it to be maintained, I would still be a part of life, causing God to be a life system, which would be redundant. Those religions are redundant, therefore unnecesary, and therefore do not exist outside of life.
The requirements of axiom definitions would require one to have all of thi defined for themselves in some fashion anyway.
In other words, I hate this thread.
Quote:
Saturday wrote
in relationship to the other thread, you should read "The Last Question" by Asimov from lostsheep's link above if you haven't already. It's superbly written and it has to do with the implications of immortality.
|