|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Would you look in the box?
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
No, I don't think I'd open the box - knowing me I'd probably put it down "somewhere safe" and then forget where I'd put it.
I don't think I'm particularly interested in the answer as I'm not sure that it is an important question.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I focus on the set-up because it's too dodgy to be a barometer of what's in my own soul.
Really? I thought it exposed what is in your soul rather well, right in the answer you wrote.
Accepting the set-up as stated, the test between opening and not opening the box is not a good one for me. Therefore I reject the set-up, which is a meta-response. This may say oodles about my soul. I never said otherwise; you twisted my words about not being a barometer to be a meta-meta-comment. Kind of like a Jesuit might.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Of course, I don't need to look in the box given the premises of the OP. For there to be guaranteed, absolute and compelling proof of an ultimate truth, which can be infallibly conveyed to me but never communicated by me, would require some impressive supernatural contrivance to set up. Ergo, God exists.
And come to think of it, even ignoring the improbability of such a box existing and being persuasive but not communicatable, you can't prove a negative. It's impossible to prove God doesn't exist, so what's in the box must be proof that God does exist.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
I'm going to surprise myself and say no, I wouldn't open it. My faith, nebulous, equivocal, and abstract though it may be, really does depend on a "real" God, even if even the meaning of "real" in is highly contested.
When I came to religion five years ago, I felt like I had a choice. On the one hand, I could believe in the universe of my physicist parents, beautiful, wondrous, and mysterious, but wholly inanimate and disinterested. Their universe is completely indifferent to what we do, how we live, what we suffer (though I should add that my parents seem to lead reasonably contented lives trying to do good in such a universe). Or I could conceive of a universe that somehow does care, that what happens in it does matter, in which there is good and bad, right and wrong, where joy and suffering matter, and there's a direction and a goal for existence. I have some sense, some intuition, some need to believe this is true, so I chose the latter. For me, "God" is a way of conceiving of such a universe, Christianity is a way to make sense of God, and engage with God.
Could I read the Bible, knowing that's it's really "just" myth, even if I'm perfectly willing to believe that much of it, perhaps even all of it, is mythical? Can I participate in liturgy, if it's been reduced to simply a stage show with fancy clothes and nice music? There's a reason I'm not Unitarian. That God stands behind it matters.
As I go about doing my Christian thing, in the background is a nagging suspicion that it's all some elaborate wish fulfillment fantasy. So be it. If it's a fantasy, it makes my life better, and make me try harder. I spent most of my life as some vague sort of humanist, and I could go back to that, but at this point, I would find that deeply disappointing. So, I believe, try to live my life as if, and keep the hope that it'll all come out in the wash. Knowing really wouldn't help matters.
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras says
quote:
But there seems to be some conflation of the question of the existance of a Deity with the issue of an "afterlife" going on here. They are really separate issues. The OP is only addressing the former.
I'm pleased you noticed that, and that it wasn't just me.
However, I think there's a widespread assumption that if God doesn't exist, it follows that there's no afterlife. It's only possible for there to be an afterlife if God does exist.
But what if that assumption is faulty?
Personally, I can't see how the knowledge of whether God exists or not can be considered either a good or a bad thing, unless there's grounds for believing that our afterlives are in some way conditional upon that knowledge. If the existence or non-existence of God, and therefore also our level of knowledge and/or ignorance of the existence or non-existence of God, is of no consequence to our afterlives, then I can't see why anyone would care about whether the box is opened or not.
So I suspect that I might open the box, then tip the incontrovertible proof of God's existence or otherwise into the paper recycling bin, and then use the box to store some of my clutter, to help me tidy my flat.
[ 25. June 2010, 19:05: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Taking the "Schroedinger's God" notion a step further: Suppose opening the box will provide conclusive proof of God's existence or nonexistence, but until you open it, God remains in a state of indeterminate potential existence/nonexistence. Do you choose to open the box and collapse the probability wave?
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you eat the fruit? I would open the box. Just call me Eve.
The setup of the OP has exactly nothing to do with the Fall. There is no indication that God disapproves. There is no serpent influencing the decision. There is also no attempt to "be like God", merely a replacing of what one believes by faith anyway with what one knows by proof.
My post was just a creative link between another occasion when human beings were tempted to do something arguably dodgy, in terms of being curious about something impacting on their mortal state of existence.
However, as you raise the issue, do we know God would approve of such a box and its contents; and do we know that he would approve of his creation choosing the option of absolute certainty over exercise of faith? He seemed to get rather miffed when, after waving the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil in their faces saying 'no touching', Adam and Eve did precisely that.
Myself, I'm not convinced the classic interpretation of the myth of Adam and Eve, ie, what you refer to as the Fall, is entirely the right one, anyway. To me, it says more about humanity's relationship with curiousity and certainty, than anything else. Rather like this thread, hence my link.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
...
Do you open the box?
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
There is, then, nothing in the box that will add to the proof already available to every one of us.
Now, if it were to reveal something about God, I would definitely open it.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
There is, then, nothing in the box that will add to the proof already available to every one of us.
Now, if it were to reveal something about God, I would definitely open it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caledonian
Shipmate
# 15493
|
Posted
you might find Schrodingers cat in the box too!
Oh Dear !
Posts: 76 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I'm also concerned about what the box would say about me by extension.
I mean, the absentee landlord who you don't see til you die is one way to see "God exists" as being a positive statement, but what if there's more to it than that? Is this a liberationist holy Marxist? A dispensationalist destroyer of worlds? A Unitarian Universalist pink cloud of warm fuzzies? A kind Wesleyan taskmaster or a Calvinist sorting hat?
As I think I mentioned somewhere else a few days ago, saying "God exists" (for some useful definition of "God" and "exist") is really just the beginning of the conversation...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I must say, I totally jived with mousethief's first page response.
ETA: As also Anselmina's anxiety that it would somehow be some kind of test, which I would be failing if I opened the box.
[ 25. June 2010, 21:51: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'd probably shout at the idiot who gave it to me. Because I'm OCD enough that it would torment me whether I opened the bloody thing or not, both before and after the opening (if any).
If I did not open it, I'd have the usual Pandora's temptation, simply because I'm like a cat in that way. I'd have the same temptation if you told me the answer to who wins the FIFA World Cup was in there (which I don't give two hoots and a holler about). I'd still go out of my mind wanting to open it.
If I DID open it, I'd spend the rest of my life being pissed at myself for bothering when I knew the answer already. And wondering what opening the bloody thing said about either a) my faith or b) my compulsiveness.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
An interesting issue here is what a positive answer would do to one's free will. But I'm still fixed on the question of whether the mere answer provided by this hypothetical box would tell anything about the nature of God. That's not indicated by the OP. After all, there's quite a difference in the relevance of an impersonal deity with no real interest in human affairs or the individual person on the one hand, and a deity that is not only transcendent but also immanent. I think the revelation of a completely distant deity might not make much effect on me, but the certainty of a God who is genuinely personal might have a profound impact (not necessarily salubrious, however). The box would surely break the rules, because a condition of our present existance is that we don't get factual certainty about this matter; faith, yes; certainty of the facts, no. Perhaps this also underscores the undesirability of such factual knowledge in this life. In regard to the issue of the nature of God, however, I've already reached my own conclusion that a Deity who brings the universe into existance must also be a Deity "in whom we live, and move and have our being"; at once immediate and transcendent.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Anselmina says
quote:
Myself, I'm not convinced the classic interpretation of the myth of Adam and Eve, ie, what you refer to as the Fall, is entirely the right one, anyway. To me, it says more about humanity's relationship with curiousity and certainty, than anything else.
I'm pleased you mention that. Personally, I'm sceptical of the idea that there is a single "classical" interpretation of the myth. If you take the book of Genesis as a whole, but isolate it from any other books of the Bible, you've basically got a hodge-podge of mythological themes, starting with the creation of the world, and ending up with some tribe of people being enslaved by some powerful empire - but there's no obvious overall theme.
However, once you put it together with Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, it becomes clear that the whole point of the book of Genesis is to serve as a back-story for the life of Moses. Exodus to Deuteronomy is the narrative of the legends of the heroic deeds of Moses - and Genesis is a book which is intended to give those legends a cosmic significance, by drawing upon pre-existing Mesopotamian mythology. The legend of the life of Moses is the only thing that gives unity of purpose to the whole of the book of Genesis, which strongly suggests to me that it was never intended to be taken separately.
This is a bit like the way that Virgil's Aeneid draws upon the Trojan War tradition to form a backdrop for the foundation of the Roman empire. The Trojan War tradition is obviously older than the Aeneid - however, the things the Aeneid says about the Trojan War are for the purpose of putting Aeneas into a legendary context. Likewise also Genesis, Mesopotamian myth and Moses. Just because the Mesopotamian myth is probably older than the legend of Moses, does not mean that we can assume that the Genesis was written first, and that Exodus was added later. It's far far more likely to have been the other way round - that is, the legend of the heroic deeds of Moses had started to develop as an oral tradition first, before someone had the idea of tacking a creation and flood story onto the front of it.
Interestingly, in the Old Testament, whenever anyone asks what the point in worshipping God is, it's not because he has created the world - at least not in the pre-exilic text, anyway. In the pre-exilic passages, the reason for worshipping God is because he led the Israelites out of Egypt. Curiously, though, the credit for leading the Israelites out of Egypt is something that God shares with Moses. But apart from the passages in Genesis that deal directly with the creation, creation rarely gets a mention, and only in passing at most. So it's clear to me that in the pre-exilic text, the creation was only intended to be a side-show. The main feature was Moses.
All of the passages which say that the creation of the world is a reason for worshipping God are post-exilic. The most famous such section is Isaiah from chapter 40 onwards.
In the New Testament, the exodus from Egypt is most emphatically not a reason for worshipping God. It hardly even gets a mention. But on the other hand, there's a lot more emphasis on the creation. So, interesting theological shift going on there. It looks to me that when the story of the creation and the fall was put in the Torah in the first place, it was originally for the purpose of bigging up the deeds of Moses - however, as time went by, the importance of the Exodus from Egypt came to be eclipsed by the details of the creation myth.
So - bearing in mind this evidence that the purpose of Genesis appears to have changed as time went by, what would anyone say the "classic" interpretation is?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin.
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
That is a brilliant analogy. It can be seen from all our reactions to the question how different we all are in both respects.
Clever, revealing OP.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
No, I wouldn't open the box. I'd put it up on a high shelf and enjoy the excitement of not knowing. (Just like now, really).
Which would be much better than going around looking unbearably smug (I know something you don't know, nada, nada, nada).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
mousethief says quote:
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
Course, splitting hairs, but you don't need passwords to send mail - only to receive it and read it. And if a letter or a message is sent to someone who is deceased, then to read it still means you're reading someone else's mail.
But it happens - so I suppose that means we have to be careful of complaining about people to their closest friends and relatives! Still, there are worse things that can happen than for the person you're complaining about to read what you've said about them as a result of the intended recipient of your message dying before they get it. Some might say the death itself is generally the bigger deal.
Having said that, when it's confidential information that government departments keep on its own citizens that's at stake, you'd have thought they'd have procedures for dealing with things like the deaths of the people who hold the keys to the filing cabinet. I wonder if the Data Protection Act covers that sort of thing. It almost certainly gets thought about in the context of military intelligence, though.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
mousethief says quote:
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
Course, splitting hairs, but you don't need passwords to send mail - only to receive it and read it. And if a letter or a message is sent to someone who is deceased, then to read it still means you're reading someone else's mail.
You need a password to get into my mail accounts and use the addresses of the people that are stored there. The point is not sending email in and of itself, but sending email to MY mates. In the course of splitting hairs you missed the point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin.
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
That is a brilliant analogy. It can be seen from all our reactions to the question how different we all are in both respects.
I don't think it's the same thing at all. It's not even in the same class. The reason why it might be wrong to read your partner's private communications without consent is that they are private. It could also be (dependent on circumstances) an act of injustice, in that it might show a lack of trust in someone who in fairness is entitled to be trusted.
But it's not in the least wrong to look at the evidence for the existence of God. It isn't unfair to God to think about him, and it isn't an invasion of his privacy to learn about him. As far as I can judge, God positively wants us to seek the truth, and it seems to be profoundly misguided to pass up the chance to learn something on the grounds that it shows faith or trust in God to remain ignorant.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not know if the OP was intentionally precise about this. Why can you not explain the proof satisfactorily to anyone else? Because it was tailored so precisely to you, making it so truly incontrovertible for you, that everybody else who is not you could still doubt this. [/QB]
I was intentionally precise. If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I framed the question to avoid any bias towards opening the box attributable to the "fame" aspect.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
I was intentionally precise. If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I don't believe everyone would react the same way. Observe what happens when people supposedly have an alien encounter. Some spread the word far and wide and spend all their time trying to convince people that their experience was genuine. Others keep silent and never breathe a word to anyone - presumably from fear of not being believed, or perhaps for some other reason.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
IntellectByProxy says
quote:
If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I don't think that's true. You seem to be overlooking the fact that that, besides the question of whether God exists or not, there's also an unending debate about the nature of God - or, to put it another way, what is meant by "God". There's no doubt that different people mean different things by the word "God".
And that's before we even get into the question of what "existence" means, and whether existence itself even - um - exists.
And then there's the definition of "proof". YOu could prove that a mathematical formula is correct by using "induction" - but you could not use the same technique to prove that, for example, Australia exists. You can't use it to prove that God exists or doesn't exist either. The meaning of the word "proof" in a mathematical or scientific context is far too narrow to be applied to most of the things that we take for granted in our everyday lives, never mind whatever it is that you call "God".
Even the earliest Christian literature reflects how loose these terms are, in my opinion. In the text of Martyrdom of Polycarp, Polycarp is accused of being an atheist on the grounds that he does not believe that the Roman Emperor is a god. But Polycarp then turns that back round, and says that the gladiator arena crowds are atheists for not believing that Jesus is the Lord.
And on a related note, there's the accusation in Aristophanes Clouds that Socrates is both an atheist and an introducer of foreign gods at the same time. Not unreasonably, Plato has Socrates argue in Apology that these two accusations contradict each other.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
For this thought experiment, we don't need to discuss what the proof might consist of - you just have to accept that it is absolute.
Do you open the box?
I read the OP, and 4-5 replies, and then stopped to seriously consider this proposition because something about it bothers me very much. (I haven't read other replies, so forgive me if I'm only repeating what others have already said.)
I refuse the box. I think what I'm being offered, in the form of this box, is a terrible temptation: the curse of certainty. In some odd fashion, it immediately put me in mind of the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and the opportunity to rule them. Jesus rejected this temptation because it was (almost literally) beneath him -- small potatoes, compared to his real role.
Accepting the box, along with the decision of whether or not to open it, seems to me to be taking on a responsibility far too big for me to handle. Whatever the box contains, I would surely have a duty to investigate, and having investigated, I would surely have the duty to try to share the revelation within (whether or not I could, as the OP states that I would not be able to explain it).
So I tell that someone, "Take that box away. You have no business tempting me with it, and I have nothing to gain from having it in my possession. Get thee behind me!"
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
follower
Shipmate
# 15597
|
Posted
What would Richard Dawkins do I wonder?
In principle I would argue that the journey is more important than the destination etc. But I would probably sneek a look anyway.
I'm not sure weather God (or at least the old testament versoin) would approve though.
would this cause the universe to reset itself?
--------------------
Love all the people
Posts: 51 | From: dartford | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
I think that was, "Behold the Man" by Michael Moorcock, although I never read it.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
I think that was, "Behold the Man" by Michael Moorcock, although I never read it.
Snags beat you to it
My advices is not to bother reading it 'coz it's cack.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The point of the password comparison is that a person who was either a) totally insecure or b) in a troubled relationship or c) both, might feel terribly tempted to go and read the emails for the purpose of confirming that no infidelity is going on. In the same way a believer who is either a,b or c might have the same temptation with the box--that is, the creeping doubt and suspicion that makes opening the damn thing such a temptation.
By the way, for what it's worth, we know all of each other's passwords. This is necessary because we both have crappy memories. So the example was for rhetorical purposes!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Wouldn't Anselm just say that if you could conceptualize a God who didn't exist, it wouldn't be God? Open the box. If it says "no God" there's clearly something wrong with it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The point of the password comparison is that a person who was either a) totally insecure or b) in a troubled relationship or c) both, might feel terribly tempted to go and read the emails for the purpose of confirming that no infidelity is going on. In the same way a believer who is either a,b or c might have the same temptation with the box--that is, the creeping doubt and suspicion that makes opening the damn thing such a temptation.
Yes - or it could mean the opposite, that all programmes are left open because there is nothing not to trust, nothing to worry about.
I don't know for certain that God is there, but I trust that s/he he is. So I open the box.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
No, it wouldn't. There are several reasons why not, as well. Not necessarily in this order:
1) You now know, either way, what the answer is. The box appeared to you, it's impossible to show it to anyone else: it stops there. For all you know, your experience may not be unique. Right now, your next-door neighbour might be experiencing the same thing too, though s/he may never tell you or refer to it in any way.
2) You may write the whole thing off, retrospectively. The fact that you haven't been able to show the box to anyone else suggests that, although it seemed convincing at the time, you may somehow have deluded yourself. Some people will go on to convince themselves that it couldn't have happened.
3) If you can't prove it, you can't convince other people.
4) Fame and notoriety, indeed. Mention it and you'd be written off as a crackpot by some; others would expect further revelations from you, while members of the lunatic fringe would start taking an interest.
5) If there is no God, you can't insist (as you can't prove it) that you're right; but you've no right to attempt to take away anyone else's beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves.
6) Ditto, if there is a God. You can't prove it. Nor should you insist to others that they must adopt your belief. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves. They may get their own boxes in due course. Or not.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Ariel said -
if there is a God. You can't prove it. Nor should you insist to others that they must adopt your belief. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves. They may get their own boxes in due course. Or not.
Yes - so certainty would turn out very little different from faith/trust. It would change what we said or did very little.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I've been kicking this around for a few days, and still am...
But I don't think I'd open the box, and probably would not even touch it. If the box were for real, I don't think I could live with either answer--or with making the choice. If it were a fake, a trap, etc., I might never know that. I don't need the grief.
Though, if in a playful mood, I might hide the box somewhere, and leave a trail of clues, legends, and myths to point to it! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I refuse the box. I think what I'm being offered, in the form of this box, is a terrible temptation: the curse of certainty. In some odd fashion, it immediately put me in mind of the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and the opportunity to rule them. Jesus rejected this temptation because it was (almost literally) beneath him -- small potatoes, compared to his real role.
IMHO you are missing the point of that temptation: Satan is offering Jesus an illegitimate short cut to something which he will earn as a result of his death on the cross.
Though this brings us to a wider point about the nature of proof and its legitimacy: for me a central element of the Christian faith is that we will be resurrected and live with God for ever. So that offers the same level of 'proof' as the box - at least after my death. The question then becomes one of why God seems not to offer that level of proof now...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I guess by nature we are all doubting Thomases and cannot accept in faith but require proof. I would be as guilty as everyone else in this regard, which disappoints me.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Looking Lost
Apprentice
# 15435
|
Posted
Knowing me, curiosity would undoubtedly get the better of me and I would open the box. What I'd be interested in, however, is whether my beliefs I have about God are accurate (as Yorick said, there seem to be almost as many ideas of what God actually is as there are people believing/disbelieving in Him)*. I'd love to know without a doubt what we accept as truth about God is true and how much of what is accepted/taught by the various denominations as true actually isn't.
* = Of course, I'm presuming that whatever is contained within the box proves God DOES exist. If, on the other hand, it showed there was no God and my faith was nothing more than a delusion, I'd imagine that would take a lot of getting used to.
Posts: 43 | From: Western Australia. | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
I don't know. Most of the mysterious boxes I've ever opened usually have dead spiders in them.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
[ 27. June 2010, 15:55: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
There is an impression that the practice of the Christian religion is dependent upon the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then anything that relates to God's existence is profoundly broken.
To play on the marriage metaphor, it'd be like claiming to be legally married to a non-existent wife or husband, or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
It would make little difference to the things I say and do (as I said further up the thread) but, if the box proved there were no God I would have many questions.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Looking Lost:
...If, on the other hand, it showed there was no God and my faith was nothing more than a delusion, I'd imagine that would take a lot of getting used to.
I'm curious how faith could become an illusion when it's such an integral part of the human dynamic. Faith [to me] is the driving force within every creative act and is inseparable from the process. It's not simply belief in something unprovable, but gives form to imagination and inspiration through physical action. quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
I don't know. Most of the mysterious boxes I've ever opened usually have dead spiders in them.
There's always the possibility the box would reveal a blazing golden light that would melt the observers face like the ark of the covenant in "Indiana Jones"! You'd be dead but have your proof!
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Alfred E Neuman says quote:
I'm curious how faith could become an illusion when it's such an integral part of the human dynamic. Faith [to me] is the driving force within every creative act and is inseparable from the process.
I'm inclined to see it in a similar way.
I'm also coming to the opinion that the whole concept of "God", as perceived by Abrahamic religions, probably originally came about as a result of the frustrations of a migrant community who were trying to eke out an existence on the fringes of the Egyptian empire. The community was slightly integrated with Egyptian urban life, but not very integrated, and, as a result, they didn't have an awful lot of economic clout.
So they were continually annoyed with the ostentatiousness of Egyptian religion, and particularly with the showiness of the huge pyramids for the rulers. They were resentful of the fact that they tried to play along with Egyptian life for the most part, but they were never given any credit for it. The migrants would have liked to have had similar pyramids for their own dead, but they knew that they would never get pyramids built in the honour of their own ancestral heroes at Egyptian state expense, and they were never going to be able to muster the manpower or the resources to build such pyramids off their own back.
So what did they do? They cooked up a value system which taught that this kind of showiness is a bit shallow, so as to convince themselves that they were somehow morally superior to the Egyptian rulers. The purpose of life is not to ensure that you end up with the most impressive memorial after you've died. Icons aren't really what it's all about, they said. What it is all about is something else.
As time went by, that "something else" gradually morphed into the concept that Jews, Christians and Muslims now call "God".
So I think it's rather ironic that, here we are today, debating whether that "something else" exists, and whether it even matters or not whether the "something else" exists - and whether we'd even like to know if it can be proven either way.
If the "something else" was something you could physically see and touch, then we wouldn't be debating whether it exists or not. It would be plainly obvious that it does exist. But then again, it wouldn't be any different to the Egyptian pyramids.
Perhaps the ancient Egyptians had it right all along. Still, that's just my view.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Bullfrog: quote:
...or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
Well, I'm sure that's something we've all done!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Bullfrog: quote:
...or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
Well, I'm sure that's something we've all done!
OK I'll bite. In what way have we all done this? I'm not aware of ever working for a non-existent boss.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Well for me it would save me my giving to my church and the hours I spend there each week... if there was no God, I really wouldn't be there each week
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxy
Shipmate
# 2409
|
Posted
If the OP stated "There is a box..." as opposed to "Someone gives you a box..." I would open it with no hesitation.
If the truth of the universe were that there was no God, I would want to know, mainly so as to not teach my children lies. I do believe (now, by faith) that there IS in fact a God, and I would love to have that confirmed with certainty, as I expect it will be in the fullness of time. Just knowing that God IS wouldn't remove all need for faith as far as I can see. The OP doesn't state that the Incarnation or the Resurrection would be proved, for instance.
Likewise, if I'm simply foolish to believe in God, imagining things that aren't there...well, it would probably be painful, and would take time to come to grips with, but I value the truth. I would want to know.
The only thing that makes me think the box is best avoided is that vague "Someone" who's given it to me. If it merely exists, or if God himself created it for me, no problem. But from any other party, it subverts God's will as I understand it. In reality, there is no incontrovertible proof of God's existence--if the God I believe in by faith wants to leave room for doubt, then who am I to pull back the veil?
Posts: 499 | From: 11 blocks west | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
