If there were a God, don't you think he would've made him or her self known by now?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Imagine what they’d say if I ever verbalized my somewhat solipsistic thought that maybe in all those billions of people out there, with the number increasing every day…some of them might be NPCs? Not real people in the Descartian sense that I know that I am real, but rather a mere part of the simulation, created not to suffer and die, but merely to populate the world. After all, until I talk to them how do I know they will pass a turing test…and I won’t ever talk to most of them.

Forget minimizing suffering; I’d be minimizing the humanity of humanity! Golly, I’d be ripped to shreds! It’s a good thing I’ve never verbalized that thought. (This doesn’t count; it’s not verbal. )

Even supposing the RPG scenario is accurate, and even if the Players know what the goal is, that doesn’t change the fact that we avatars don’t know the goal, but are still the ones that have to deal with the sandbox we’re in. And of all the ways to play it, seeking harmony, connection, love and truth is probably as good a way to go as any. Myself I’m more into personal satisfaction and gratuitous frivolous expenditure, but hey, whatever works for you, right? I prefer to think that there’s not only one right way to play the game of life; that the ‘May’ in YMMV means permission.
[/QUOTE]

I think we avatars do have some inkling about the goal. In the few thousand years of recorded history , which is only a blink, mankind has continuously grown. There’s the discoveries of science, and similarly, the inner man has consistently searched for meaning. We are still dealing with issues of social justice and caring for the less fortunate but we have obviously made progress. I think it is that inner drive to discover both in science and in the inner person that we see something in the game that points to a goal. It’s like those little arrows that indicate “this way” even though we don’t know what lies beyond. Or perhaps it’s like the level we enter and we keep exploring and exploring until we finally find the way to advance to the next level.
Hey!! I’m liking this analogy better and better.

I agree the MAY is permission. We must explore the level in out own way and our own time and that’s part of the fun. Part of the game design. Some players enjoy exploring the level and are in no hurry to move on while others seem to be constantly seeking the way to the next level. Either way is fine. I think the game design itself eventually compells us to seek the next level.
You know who really annoys me though? The players who keep telling me how to play the game and insisting their method is the proper way.

“This way to the next level”
“Really, are you sure, have you been there?”
“Well no, but I have this book of hints by a former player and I’m just sure it’s the best book of hints ever. In fact the head programmer gave him these hints”
“He did? How do you know?”
“I just do. I believe”
“Hmmmmm ya know I met this other player who said he had a different book of hints that was given by the head programmer too”
“Oh yeah, well he’s full of crap and the head programmer will kick his ass”
well,…you get the idea.
and how about those players who insist this is the last level and if you’re looking for the next you’re a fool?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Therefore, it’s god’s fault since he made us **able **to choose that and – being omniscient – knew that we would, and what would happen as a result.
[/QUOTE]

It’s god’s fault that this is very fleeting and there’s no real risk?? That bastard.
Regardless, if we were and are a part of god then “he made us” doesn’t even apply.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think we avatars do have some inkling about the goal. In the few thousand years of recorded history , which is only a blink, mankind has continuously grown. There’s the discoveries of science, and similarly, the inner man has consistently searched for meaning. We are still dealing with issues of social justice and caring for the less fortunate but we have obviously made progress. I think it is that inner drive to discover both in science and in the inner person that we see something in the game that points to a goal. It’s like those little arrows that indicate “this way” even though we don’t know what lies beyond. Or perhaps it’s like the level we enter and we keep exploring and exploring until we finally find the way to advance to the next level.
Hey!! I’m liking this analogy better and better.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, when I look at reality I see that we’ve gradually discovered what constitutes a good behavior set for in-game survival. Don’t attack your neighbor, don’t get attacked (maybe). Be friendly to others, get friendship in return (maybe). This is good for staying alive long enough to play further, but it’s also purely in-game. I have never seen an “arrow” pointing towards what the Player’s goals might be. Ever. (I’ve seen people who think they have; you complain about them later in this post of yours.)

I also haven’t seen any indication that there are multiple levels. I mean, we’re all here in the same place, so there aren’t multiple physical levels. Human character development doesn’t follow a linear path, so “levels” is a poor term for that too; a better one would be “states”, but that doesn’t put in the linear ‘growth’ you’re trying to add to the model. I can concieve of an RPG model with linear character growth (in fact, many-but-not-all such games have linear character growth), but it doesn’t seem to be a concept that maps well to our reality. And of course, societal leveling is completely inapplicable and possibly racist, so let’s not even go there. So if it’s not those, I think I totally don’t know what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree the MAY is permission. We must explore the level in out own way and our own time and that’s part of the fun. Part of the game design. Some players enjoy exploring the level and are in no hurry to move on while others seem to be constantly seeking the way to the next level. Either way is fine. I think the game design itself eventually compells us to seek the next level.
[/QUOTE]
From where I stand, there is only one level: life. The only “level-up” I actually described in my write-up was direct elevation into heaven, and you’re clearly not talking about that.

And I explicitly don’t incorporate the game compelling you to seek the next level. That completely takes the “May” out of YMMV. Really, I’ve observed no linear growth pattern in people at all. Some develop towards spirituality, some towards wisdom, some towards curmudgeonyness, some towards antisociality, some towards hostility, some towards recklessness; further, there are some people who never seem to learn or advance at all, and there are some that constantly backtrack, and there are some that keep seeming to change directions all over the place. When you plot all these different types of ‘development’ that we see in actual real life, you don’t get a series of levels at all, but rather a web, where people can move every which way. Trying to present it as a ladder instead seems very unlike reality, and more like you’re trying to impose your own ‘scoring’ system on a reality to which it doesn’t really fit. Unless I’m totally, and I mean totally misunderstanding you?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You know who really annoys me though? The players who keep telling me how to play the game and insisting their method is the proper way.

“This way to the next level”
“Really, are you sure, have you been there?”
“Well no, but I have this book of hints by a former player and I’m just sure it’s the best book of hints ever. In fact the head programmer gave him these hints”
“He did? How do you know?”
“I just do. I believe”
“Hmmmmm ya know I met this other player who said he had a different book of hints that was given by the head programmer too”
“Oh yeah, well he’s full of crap and the head programmer will kick his ass”
well,…you get the idea.
[/QUOTE]
:mad: Yeah, those people, with their levels, deciding that they see these arrows that everyone’s supposed to be following…

Okay, you’re nowhere near as big a pain in the butt as your average “I know the Player goals, no really” type. But still, unless I’m totally misunderstanding you…you maybe should be careful where you aim those stones maybe? Just sayin’.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
and how about those players who insist this is the last level and if you’re looking for the next you’re a fool?
[/QUOTE]
Um, er, yeah. Those guys, who say there’s only the one level, and it’s a sandbox where we don’t and can’t know the main player goals, and that all of life’s that level, and there’s nowhere else to go but a premature jump straight to the leader board and that’s it…yeah, they suck. Losers, all of them.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
We weren’t talking about humanity being part of the same body. That’s not what was being analogized. So, that’s not an example of accuracy in the analogy.

What was being analogized is that god is the head and humans the body.

Which makes no sense if the body can make ‘head’ decisions.

The analogy is not accurate within its own premise: it speaks to god being the head and humans the body, but then says humans can also act like the head.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you can lodge a complaint with the authors of the Bible.
1 Corinthians 12

Look, there’s no way to discuss this subject without supposing and using our imaginations a bit. There’s no earth bound analogies that will fit in every detail while we’re discussing this subject. This analogy like most, is meant to address one aspect of God’s nature and ours. It’s really pointless to find another aspect that it was never meant to address and say, “Hey this doesn’t make sense”

That point would better be analogized as a body with two heads – one head is god and one head is man, equally in control of the whole. Of course, that can’t be your view since it’s blasphemous because you need god to be the parent.

I think the analogy works better if we apply it as it was intended and stop picking it apart. Every analogy fails if you want to pick it apart. So what? It doesn’t really establish any point other than “all analogies are imperfect” and we already knew that.

I don’t care that we’re all part of the same body, that’s changing the subject. We were talking about whether or not god is responsible for our choices since he gave us the ability to have choices. You can’t say we chose to play an RPG without first acknowledging that we had to have been able to choose (free will) before that.

I’ve said several times that we are connected to God, a part of God. You OTOH keep wanting to force the conversation back to a more traditional Christian view of God as a separate being who rules the universe. Your arguments don’t work unless we approach it in that way. I’m not interested in arguing the logic of beliefs I don’t hold. That shouldn’t be to hard to understand.

That isn’t a minor point that can be ‘addressed’ and then dismissed.

It undercuts the whole premise with regards to the issue of free will.

You’ve decided to arbitrarily begin at the point where humans choose the RPG and go from there.

You haven’t noted that to do that is a logical impossibility if the ability to choose wasn’t already present – and how did that come to be? God the head, right? You can’t say humans the body chose to be able to choose an RPG, obviously. That’s why it’s important for the human/body analogy to be meaningful in explaining that. It isn’t.

It’s important to you to force the point you’re trying to make. You want the analogy to be limited to parameters you set so your point is valid and mine isn’t.
I’m not interested. If the idea of the parts of the body trying to exert their own will doesn’t make sense to you fine. I know it’s not biologically accurate. I don’t care…it doesn’t have to be. It calls for the imagination not a hard and fast conclusion.

Sorry, but you’re clearly not willing or able to parse the issue of responsibility for being able to choose something in the first place and whose fault that is.

I’m not interested in you dictating all the parameters of the discussion.

In noting that in the previous thread, you said you’d “addressed” it and moved on.

But you haven’t, clearly won’t, and it transparently collapses your whole premise that our having ‘chosen’ to enter a world of suffering makes us ultimately responsible. It doesn’t.

Except I never said we were ultimately responsible. This is not my first time in GD. The fact that you would make that inaccurate statement is part of why I “move on” when other posters, either willfully or otherwise, don’t get the point I’ve tried to make.

You’re not going there, which is the prosletyzer’s perspective of which I spoke. It may not be attempting to convert someone, but it works backwards from belief.

You insist that what you posit is logical, which it clearly isn’t, dismiss observations to that end as presumptively ‘arrogant’ since that would mean being able to coherently explain the notion but that can’t be done since it’s all beyond our understanding.

It’s not beyond our understanding to see that it doesn’t make logical sense to not hold an omniscient god – that does **not **control everything – responsible for humans having free will with which to choose suffering in the first place.

I started by addressing a specific point for a specific reason. Most of these discussions dismiss god belief based on the concept of god as a totally separate being. That’s okay by me because I dismiss that too. It was never my intention to play a game where I must answer every question put to me in a way that satisfies you or any other poster. The inference to believers that unless you can answer all my questions you should admit your belief doesn’t make sense is a foolish waste of time.

The problem with this subject is that ultimately we come to “I don’t know ..and neither do you” and that is an honest and logical answer.

Posters insist “Your belief doesn’t make sense and isn’t logical” and forget to qualify it with the unspoken “to me”
In my belief system{which is provisional} we are connected to God and each other in a way we do not yet understand. Similar to the way all humans no matter how different they look are made of essentially the same stuff. How that connection applies to our will, and our emotions is still unclear to me but I’m working on it. I’m against the more common view of God as separate all powerful deity myself. I’m also against atheists making arguments against that particular view of god and presenting it as if it applies to god belief in general. It doesn’t.
My experience is that people on both sides of belief make some arguments based in part on their emotional attachment to certain concepts. That’s easier to see in believers I guess but I’d like atheists to be aware of it also.

Oh well. Maybe you’ve never heard of the notion of parents being punished for the actions of their minor children, as may happen in the fires in California.

I would point out the analogy in there but I’d be wasting my figurative breath.

You sure would be since that doesn’t apply. Did you call my explanation coherent so you’d feel more victorious in picking it apart? You’re free to draw your own conclusions about why I’m not interested in that game.

[the_PC_apeman]

Roflmao

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Hmm, when I look at reality I see that we’ve gradually discovered what constitutes a good behavior set for in-game survival. Don’t attack your neighbor, don’t get attacked (maybe). Be friendly to others, get friendship in return (maybe). This is good for staying alive long enough to play further, but it’s also purely in-game. I have never seen an “arrow” pointing towards what the Player’s goals might be. Ever. (I’ve seen people who think they have; you complain about them later in this post of yours.)

I also haven’t seen any indication that there are multiple levels. I mean, we’re all here in the same place, so there aren’t multiple physical levels. Human character development doesn’t follow a linear path, so “levels” is a poor term for that too; a better one would be “states”, but that doesn’t put in the linear ‘growth’ you’re trying to add to the model. I can concieve of an RPG model with linear character growth (in fact, many-but-not-all such games have linear character growth), but it doesn’t seem to be a concept that maps well to our reality. And of course, societal leveling is completely inapplicable and possibly racist, so let’s not even go there. So if it’s not those, I think I totally don’t know what you’re talking about.From where I stand, there is only one level: life. The only “level-up” I actually described in my write-up was direct elevation into heaven, and you’re clearly not talking about that.
[/QUOTE]

That’s an excellent point. I agree that there’s no indication there is another level other than some people’s feeling. I do think that the goals of improving our in game situation and personal growth are what the arrows can point to. That could be a goal that believers and non believers can share and the issue of whether there is another level doesn’t need to be a point of contention. We’ll find out at game’s end.

I know human development is not linear. I saw a development chart years ago in some physiology book that was a continuous spiraling line of many circles that very gradually moved up. It scared the crap out of me because I realized it was more accurate than linear charts I had seen and it pointed out that human development was much harder and would contain a lot more backward movement before we eventually progressed. The important thing is we have progressed and there seems to be some determination to continue to do so.

And I explicitly don’t incorporate the game compelling you to seek the next level. That completely takes the “May” out of YMMV. Really, I’ve observed no linear growth pattern in people at all. Some develop towards spirituality, some towards wisdom, some towards curmudgeonyness, some towards antisociality, some towards hostility, some towards recklessness; further, there are some people who never seem to learn or advance at all, and there are some that constantly backtrack, and there are some that keep seeming to change directions all over the place. When you plot all these different types of ‘development’ that we see in actual real life, you don’t get a series of levels at all, but rather a web, where people can move every which way. Trying to present it as a ladder instead seems very unlike reality, and more like you’re trying to impose your own ‘scoring’ system on a reality to which it doesn’t really fit. Unless I’m totally, and I mean totally misunderstanding you?:mad: Yeah, those people, with their levels, deciding that they see these arrows that everyone’s supposed to be following…

The arrows can point to growth within the game and each player must decide for themselves how determined they are to progress and what path they whish to explore. You’re right of course that some players don’t seem to be making any effort at all or seem to be backsliding. Still, even with that being true, humanity in general has progressed and still seems moved in some way to do so. Wouldn’t you say? It seems to me that as certain players progress it eventually lifts the level of the entire game and most of it’s players.

Okay, you’re nowhere near as big a pain in the butt as your average “I know the Player goals, no really” type. But still, unless I’m totally misunderstanding you…you maybe should be careful where you aim those stones maybe? Just sayin’

Point taken. I try not to throw stones maliciously but I think a little confrontation and contention is an unavoidable thing. It’s part of how we grow. We can if we try even be a bit grateful to those who have contended against us and helped us grow.

.Um, er, yeah. Those guys, who say there’s only the one level, and it’s a sandbox where we don’t and can’t know the main player goals, and that all of life’s that level, and there’s nowhere else to go but a premature jump straight to the leader board and that’s it…yeah, they suck. Losers, all of them.

No No …I didn’t mean that. I’m saying that belief that there is another level and belief that there isn’t doesn’t have to be a point of major contention while we’re in game.

Player one; “I believe after we finish this level there’s a higher level to enjoy”
Player two; “Oh I don’t think so , I haven’t seen any indication of it.”
Player one; “Really? Well should we argue about that and I’ll call you damed, and you can call me foolish, or continue playing the game we’re in and do our best here?”

[9thFloor]

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This might disappoint you somewhat, but my RPG perspective doesn’t entirely eliminate the idea of morality (that is, the notion that there is a ‘proper’ way to to live one’s life). I mean, it’s a game: and as I described it it has points, scores, and winning conditions; if you get a high score, you end up on the leaderboard (aka “heaven”), and if you get the “optimum victory score” while alive you get taken directly into “heaven” without bothering to die first (or in the case of the Jesus player, again). So clearly there are things you’re supposed to do to get good points and a high score.

However, there are two very important details:

1. While the player knows what the good actions to take are, the avatar doesn’t. Remember, we are the avatars. We are not the players, or at least we aren’t when it comes to available information. So while there is an absolute morality, we don’t know what it is. I believe I mentioned at one point that the scenario as presented allowed for the possibility that eating Snickers bars could be the goal, and therefore the one moral act, and the one route to “heaven”.

(From this lack of avatar knowledge about the goals, one presumes the avatars should stop preaching at each other what to do. Wouldn’t it be nice!)

2. The game itself is not presented as restricting, limiting, or punishing “bad” behavior, excepting that you get a lower “score”. There is no punishment to the player for not getting a high score; his avatar won’t end up on the leader board, but that’s no big deal; the avatar’s play is not restricted while it’s alive, and either way the player can play again with a new avatar later if he wants to.

Now, I admit I included the concept of a leader board mostly as a way to take lighthearted potshots at carrot/stick religions. (Just like I included Jesus as a way to take potshots at Elvisians. Er, Christians.) Even so, it makes a certain amount of sense; most games include some method of tracking advancement. In the very sandboxy games, this is often simply done by tracking advancement in the main plot; by that logic, if you die, you win. Excepting I stated that if you die (as opposed to being taken up directly into heaven), you lose. Oh, well.

Seriously though, if you weren’t taking potshots at existing religions, one could easily concoct a “pure sandbox” rpg model, which lets the Players roleplay in a completely morally impartial way. There’s nothing wrong or contradictory with such a model; and it certainly doesn’t contradict with reality (where there appears to be zippo supernatural consequences for bad behavior (no lightning)); it just isn’t the model I happened to write.
By the way, before you get all gung-ho about the RPG model, keep in mind that it gets its happy, friendly conflict-free demeanor mostly by being heartlessly callous to the avatars. That is to say, us. The player might shrug and go on happily with life when his Pac-Man is shrivelling up after touching a ghost, but that sure doesn’t help the Pac-Man any; he’s still shriveling and dying. It’s cold comfort to say to someone, “Sure, your parents are dead and you’re a paraplegic now and are in constant agony besides, but the real you doesn’t actually hurt at all, and is chuckling with his buddy angels over the bad luck he’s having. You just think your life totally sucks because he’s role-playing you so well.”

So the RPG model doesn’t really eliminate the problem of evil; it just answers it with “God doesn’t give a crap about the suffering of man; he finds it amusing! Ha ha ha! Because, in reality, the suffering isn’t actually real.” Real being a relative term to us avatars, of course.

On the upside, the RPG model does give you a way for supernatural godlike free-willed entities to create this suffering-filled world without subjecting any helpless or choiceless entities to (real) suffering, and thereby entirely avoids a lot of the stupidity that most organized religions have to do a two-step and twist to try to avoid tripping over. From there you can tack on all sorts of stuff, from superstitions to ghosts (like I did) to interactive gods if you want, all contradiction-free, if you can stomach the fact that you’ve decided that you’re not real.
[/QUOTE]

Now that’s coherent.

It’s also, I’d assert, about as close to an understanding that we can reasonably be expected to get at if we’re constraining ourselves to what’s evident and rational.

Which doesn’t mean it’s nice LOL

Pretty cool concept with an overarching paradigm that’s pretty inclusive of most reasonable considerations about what life’s about.

[9thFloor]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s god’s fault that this is very fleeting and there’s no real risk?? That bastard.
Regardless, if we were and are a part of god then “he made us” doesn’t even apply.
[/QUOTE]

With regards to that first statement above, I’m glad it agrees that it’s god’s fault. (Whether or not the suffering life is fleeting and not "real’ is irrelevant as to blame.)
With regards to the second statement, your god didn’t make man. Very well.

Who did? Right.

Being part of god doesn’t preclude god having made that part of himself.

And if you’re saying we are god and have always been, then – once again – you’ve skirted the issue of the origins of free will by just saying it always was, we always were.

Your first statement above and the second one show a contradiction; you want god to be blameless in the first; yet, in the second, you want us to be god and therefore to blame. Convenient.

[9thFloor]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s god’s fault that this is very fleeting and there’s no real risk?? That bastard.
Regardless, if we were and are a part of god then “he made us” doesn’t even apply.
[/QUOTE]

With regards to that first statement above, I’m glad it agrees that it’s god’s fault. (Whether or not the suffering life is fleeting and not "real’ is irrelevant as to blame.)
With regards to the second statement, your god didn’t make man. Very well.

Who did? Right.

Being part of god doesn’t preclude god having made that part of himself.

And if you’re saying we are god and have always been, then – once again – you’ve skirted the issue of the origins of free will by just saying it always was, we always were.

Your first statement above and the second one show a contradiction; you want god to be blameless in the first; yet, in the second, you want us to be god and therefore to blame. Convenient.

I’ll take your reply above to indicate that you agree it’s god’s fault. Thanks, I’m done with that then. You’ve simply defined humans as being part of god. Fine.

(sorry about that double post, my computer also did a double take :p)

[9thFloor]

"I think the analogy works better if we apply it as it was intended and stop picking it apart. Every analogy fails if you want to pick it apart. So what? It doesn’t really establish any point other than “all analogies are imperfect” and we already knew that."

That’s really just sad. You can’t admit your analogy doesn’t analogize anything that we were talking about. Specifically, responsibility. Oh well (again).

[9thFloor]

"Your arguments don’t work unless we approach it in that way. I’m not interested in arguing the logic of beliefs I don’t hold. That shouldn’t be to hard to understand."

LOL You haven’t even coherently explained the beliefs you DO hold.

You just keep saying “we are a part of god” and then move on.

That explains nothing and means less. I think you know that. Oh well (once again).

[9thFloor]

"Except I never said we were ultimately responsible. This is not my first time in GD. The fact that you would make that inaccurate statement is part of why I “move on” when other posters, either willfully or otherwise, don’t get the point I’ve tried to make."

Then you’ve done a bang-up job of impersonating a point of view that makes humans ultimately responsible.

[9thFloor]

"The inference to believers that unless you can answer all my questions you should admit your belief doesn’t make sense is a foolish waste of time."

What a swerve. There is no such inference except maybe in your head if that’s what you think I’m saying. What I’ve said is that if you can’t answer all questions regarding the logic OF YOUR OWN BELIEF, then it’s self-evidently not logical. You might also call it foolish, that’s up to you.

That’s not the same as saying you should be able to answer all of someone else’s questions about everything in the cosmos. It just means that your belief can be logically defended.

Therefore, your belief is in something that can’t comport to logic.

Nothing wrong with that, faith is what it is so have at it. Just don’t say it’s logical. It isn’t.

[9thFloor]

"The problem with this subject is that ultimately we come to “I don’t know …and neither do you” and that is an honest and logical answer."

What’s with this defensive “…and neither do you” crap?

I don’t have to know the answer to the logic of a belief I don’t think is logical. You do. If you’re claiming it’s logical. You’re the one that believes it, not me.

[9thFloor]

**Posters insist “Your belief doesn’t make sense and isn’t logical” and forget to qualify it with the unspoken “to me” **

Holy crap, you want to make logic subjective as well? Have you taken a course in logic?

[9thFloor]

"In my belief system{which is provisional} we are connected to God and each other in a way we do not yet understand."

Thank you. That says it all. You believe something that you don’t understand. Provisionally.

I’m done.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
With regards to that first statement above, I’m glad it agrees that it’s god’s fault. (Whether or not the suffering life is fleeting and not "real’ is irrelevant as to blame.)
With regards to the second statement, your god didn’t make man. Very well.

Who did? Right.

Being part of god doesn’t preclude god having made that part of himself.

No it doesn’t. It just comes to the “I don’t know and neither to you” point that I mentioned before and so the question remains unanswered and at this point, unanswerable.

And if you’re saying we are god and have always been, then – once again – you’ve skirted the issue of the origins of free will by just saying it always was, we always were.

I haven’t skirted anything. As I pointed out before. I don’t know and neither do you is a perfectly reasonable and logical answer when it happens to be the truth.

Your first statement above and the second one show a contradiction; you want god to be blameless in the first; yet, in the second, you want us to be god and therefore to blame. Convenient.

This is an inaccurate assessment of my position but not the first one nor the last I’m sure. I’d prefer the term responsibility to blame. Who is ultimately responsible?

As a believer I’d say God has made all the tools available for me to make myself and the lives of those around me better, so it’s my responsibility.
As a non believer, you don’t believe in God at all so it must be your responsibility right?

[9thFloor]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmosdan
I think we avatars do have some inkling about the goal. In the few thousand years of recorded history , which is only a blink, mankind has continuously grown. There’s the discoveries of science, and similarly, the inner man has consistently searched for meaning. We are still dealing with issues of social justice and caring for the less fortunate but we have obviously made progress. I think it is that inner drive to discover both in science and in the inner person that we see something in the game that points to a goal. It’s like those little arrows that indicate “this way” even though we don’t know what lies beyond. Or perhaps it’s like the level we enter and we keep exploring and exploring until we finally find the way to advance to the next level.
Hey!! I’m liking this analogy better and better.

Originally Posted by begbert2
Hmm, when I look at reality I see that we’ve gradually discovered what constitutes a good behavior set for in-game survival. Don’t attack your neighbor, don’t get attacked (maybe). Be friendly to others, get friendship in return (maybe). This is good for staying alive long enough to play further, but it’s also purely in-game. I have never seen an “arrow” pointing towards what the Player’s goals might be. Ever. (I’ve seen people who think they have; you complain about them later in this post of yours.)**

Run, begbert2, run! LOL

I gave cosmosdan the benefit of the doubt when I saw his earlier posts because it seemed to me that he was being ganged up on by non-believers and the subject of ridicule due completely to those non-believers’ sense of unfounded superiority and contempt for people that believe in some version of xianity.

Boy, was I wrong.

Just so you know, what he’s doing (that is, **what his arguments are doing **-- I don’t know the man and don’t judge his character) is known as “secularizing” religion.

It’s in that same spirit that you get things like intelligent design and rock 'n roll xianity. It’s supposed to seem different than old, stodgy, dogmatic xians.

The problem is, the logic is just as vacant.

Reminds me of that pastor that hired a gay masseur; he was quoted years prior as saying “They’ve done studies, and evangelical xians have the best sex life!”

It’s not hip. It’s just meant to seem that way.

What he will do is take your argument/idea/theory and try to bend it to comport with his view of postmodern xianity or whatever he calls it.

He’ll keep trying to bend it to fit. It’s not an honestly logical open-ended pursuit of understanding (as I mistakenly thought). It’s just retrofitting your idea to his version of xianity.

I think, from what I’ve read, he’s sincere, well-meaning, and tries to be conversationally generous. Sadly, his POV is intellectually dishonest. That’s about the nicest thing my avatar can say about his avatar. LOL

If you wanna keep trying to logic-it-out with him, you’ll want to borrow my gun to blow your brains out at the end of the process.

Trust me, you’ll thank me for it. :rolleyes:

[9thFloor]

**"This is an inaccurate assessment of my position but not the first one nor the last I’m sure. I’d prefer the term responsibility to blame. Who is ultimately responsible?

As a believer I’d say God has made all the tools available for me to make myself and the lives of those around me better, so it’s my responsibility.
As a non believer, you don’t believe in God at all so it must be your responsibility right?"
**
Out of respect for the conversation we’ve had thus far, I will reply to this last post.

Your statement above “As a believer I’d say **God **has made all the tools available for me to make myself and the lives of those around me better, so it’s my responsibility.” can be translated, given your views, to the following: “As a believer I’d say **I **(since you think god and I are part of the same thing) made all the tools available for me to make myself and the lives of those around me better, so it’s my responsibility.”

So, you – as part of god – made all the tools for yourself which means you made yourself responsible by setting things up to make yourself responsible.

That makes no sense. Yes, I know, it’s unknowable. Yet you believe it.

Somewhere, a logic flower has died. How sad. It was such a pretty flower.
"As a non believer, you don’t believe in God at all so it must be your responsibility right?"

Absolutely.

[begbert2]

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Now that’s coherent.

It’s also, I’d assert, about as close to an understanding that we can reasonably be expected to get at if we’re constraining ourselves to what’s evident and rational.

Which doesn’t mean it’s nice LOL

Pretty cool concept with an overarching paradigm that’s pretty inclusive of most reasonable considerations about what life’s about.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks; its nice to be accused of coherency now and then. It’s not something I accomplish that often.

And yeah, you can get a lot of mileage out of a sensible justification for God(s) not correcting human suffering, can’t you? Almost as much freedom as you can get out of not imagining there to be gods at all, and considerably more listener satisfaction, especially if they don’t notice that whole “sucks to be the avatar/you” part of it.

(And I’m not worried about engaging cosmosdan. What’s he gonna do, hunt me down and be compassionate at me? If I get tired of fencing with what one concedes might be a fixed mind, I can disengage at any time.)

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That’s an excellent point. I agree that there’s no indication there is another level other than some people’s feeling. I do think that the goals of improving our in game situation and personal growth are what the arrows can point to. That could be a goal that believers and non believers can share and the issue of whether there is another level doesn’t need to be a point of contention. We’ll find out at game’s end.
[/QUOTE]
I will 100% concede that from an ‘avatar quality of life’ perspective, there are lots of good reasons to be nice and friendly and “improve our in-game situation”. However there’s no reason to think that doing so is the objective of the Players, or that that’s what “scoring” is based on. That’s one of the notions I want to keep firmly attached to at least my variant of the RPG model: We don’t know the player goals, and we can’t know the player goals, so there’s no point in trying to meet player goals, and all those people who claim to be trying to force you to meet Player (God) goals for “your own good”? Give them the swift heave-ho.

Now, if you’re not talking about Player goals or the in-game scoring system, but are instead just talking about an in-game way of improving general quality of avatar life, that’s another matter. I’m perfectly fine with improved quality of life. Though I’ll personally go about it my own way, thankyouverymuch.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I know human development is not linear. I saw a development chart years ago in some physiology book that was a continuous spiraling line of many circles that very gradually moved up. It scared the crap out of me because I realized it was more accurate than linear charts I had seen and it pointed out that human development was much harder and would contain a lot more backward movement before we eventually progressed. The important thing is we have progressed and there seems to be some determination to continue to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s “we”? Are we talking about societal goals again? Certainly the mass of avatarmanity isn’t moving in enough emotional or societal concert for them to be referred to as a collective ‘we’ in those matters.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The arrows can point to growth within the game and each player must decide for themselves how determined they are to progress and what path they whish to explore. You’re right of course that some players don’t seem to be making any effort at all or seem to be backsliding. Still, even with that being true, humanity in general has progressed and still seems moved in some way to do so. Wouldn’t you say? It seems to me that as certain players progress it eventually lifts the level of the entire game and most of it’s players.
[/QUOTE]
I still don’t see any arrows, aside from personal motivations, which vary wildly and are all over the place from person to person.

And as for “humanity in general” progressing (this keeps switching so fast I can’t keep up), here’s some salt in your pudding: if this world is actually a gameworld for otherwise placid beings to go to for diversion and variety, they’re not actually going to be all that interested in a world where we all sit around sipping tea together and placidly being friendly. They’re gonna want action! Adventure! Intrigue! So, while a certain amount of societal development is good, since advancement = technology = new interesting weapons for the “FPS segments” of the “gameworld”, there would seem to be little Player incentive for utopiaizing the world. Primitive, barbaric hack-and-slashers make good games, after all.

Heck, if the world becomes perfectly utopian, the Players and Admins might not find it to be different enough from their everydaylife to be interesting, and they might shut it down. :eek: How’s that for a twist: the end of the world, caused not by an overrun of evil, but rather of the dread killers peace and harmony.

Of course, the Admins probably wouldn’t want to restart the entire gameworld just because things have got a little too peaceful. They might just artificially start a few conflicts, twisting situations and artificially ramping conflict and war a little to continue to provide a variety of scenarios, so that Players have environments of both peace and war and everything inbetween to sandbox in.

.
.
.
Hey, wait a minute…
:eek:
.
.
.
Naah.
Um.
(Backs away slowly.)

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Point taken. I try not to throw stones maliciously but I think a little confrontation and contention is an unavoidable thing. It’s part of how we grow. We can if we try even be a bit grateful to those who have contended against us and helped us grow.
[/QUOTE]
I define ‘growth’ as ‘getting and watching more DVDs’. When this contention advances that end, I’ll let you know.

And remember, don’t try to push your personal goals as being universal game goals!

(Okay, okay. I really define my main personal goal as “personally having the best and most pleasant/fun life as possible on average across my entire lifetime”, and you’ll know when I think this conflict ceases advancing that end: I’ll stop replying. Still though: don’t try to push your personal goals as being universal game goals! I don’t! You can have a lousy life if you want; fine with me! )

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No No …I didn’t mean that. I’m saying that belief that there is another level and belief that there isn’t doesn’t have to be a point of major contention while we’re in game.

Player one; “I believe after we finish this level there’s a higher level to enjoy”
Player two; “Oh I don’t think so , I haven’t seen any indication of it.”
Player one; “Really? Well should we argue about that and I’ll call you damed, and you can call me foolish, or continue playing the game we’re in and do our best here?”
[/QUOTE]
As long as nobody tries to force me to try to aspire to a higher level that I don’t even see reason to believe exists, we’ll all get along fine.