[ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal

[aaron]

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 19:21, Geoffrey wrote:
> aaron wrote:
> 
> > Stating it another way, if there were a Great Omnipotent Deity behind the 
> > existence of the universe, then the best argument for this ultimate 
> > intelligence would be a universe comprised entirely of the cyclic, self 
> > sustaining and evolutionary mechanisms that human science uncovers
> > and explores. The perfect intelligent universe will allow that its all
> > powerful creator need never lift a finger beyond the Big Bang; just light
> > the fuse, pop a cold one, sit back and enjoy the fireworks!   There's
> > nothing more elegantly intelligent than the idea of spark once, run
> > forever!
> 
> Aaron, that's where your thought process is flawed.  God is a 
> micro-manager. :)

Apologies, but I'd have to consider a micro managing deity to be a
meddling middle man, perhaps some bureaucrat from the celestial
DMV, and probably more akin to a fallen angel or Bill Gates than
an omnipotent creator.  :-)

>  (Thank God! :) )

Which one?  The micro-manager? :-)

>  Haven't you ever put your heart and 
> soul into the creation of anything?  Certainly you have.   Do you then 
> just sit it on the shelf and stare at it?  I think not.

Sure, I follow up on my creations... but I only need to because I'm not
omnipotent (: at least not while I'm awake :). An omnipotent creator
wouldn't have to tinker with their designs post facto. The works of an
ultimate intelligence would, by definition, be complete, integral and
without flaw in the first place, which is the primary premise behind
the "Intelligent Deity" theory I am putting forth here.

In example, take all those popular mythologies about commanding
parents to murder their children and instigating deadly plagues and
slaughtering first born infants in cold blood and raining down brimstone
and surreptitiously conspiring in one murderous genocide after another.
I'm honestly sorry if it offends anyone, and none of this is being said to
incite, but to _me_ those just don't seem to be very bright, efficient or
effective methodologies for cultivating a favorite living creation or for
running a planet, let alone for managing an entire universe. The deity
defined by those myths comes across (to _me_) as a small, hateful,
murderous, vindictive and vengeance minded terrorist. My view is that
such a deity would be incapable of creation, as their actions are entirely
inconsistent with an entity that could claim either the intelligence or
omnipotence needed to do so.

> How can you actually think that you could possibly understand the 
> thought process of God?

Actually... it's because everything of my being and intelligence assures
me that I, like every sentient being, am fully capable of envisioning and
understanding the nature of my own existence. There is also the knowledge
that it would be impossible to do any harm to this arena of philosophy after
observing the endless linage of charlatans and frauds who claim sacred
dispensation to define the nature of existence for all humanity based
solely on their ability to recite from a tired repertoire of anachronistic
fairy tails. Justification is also found in seeing those from that group who
then inflate their arrogance into mystical claims of being "special" or
"chosen" people who have been secretly (and exclusively) ordained to
speak for the deities they invent (how convenient). And that's before
considering the more deadly extremists among them who then extend
their delusions of grandeur into a divine entitlement to subjugate or
murder any people who disagree with their (invariably narrow) visions
of their omnipotent imaginary friends..

...and you would seem to be claiming that you have a special understanding
of the management style of an ultimate deity, as well.  :-)

As an intelligent entity of the universe, I am as fully qualified and entitled
to consider the nature of existence or to imagine the forms and purposes
of potential deities as any other human being that has ever existed. 

After all, if human existence really is the end product of an intelligent
creation process, and if we are, therefore, a direct reflection of some
omnipotent creator's intelligence, then we must _all_ possess the potential
to know the creator intimately. Extending the idea of "putting your heart and
soul into your creations",  the invention is ultimately inseparable from the
inventor,  which is the other key premise of my "Intelligent Deity" theory.
:-)

It may be stubborn, but I'm reserving my imagination for deities that can
at least exhibit the kind of intelligence, empathy, compassion and capacity
to love that can be readily observed in the human race every day.
:-)

> Please, don't let this start a flame war.  The list doesn't need it and 
> I want to have the last word.

So what? Now you feel divinely entitled to dictate the conditions of this
speculative dialog?  :-)  Will the next commentary be a rant about the
"blasphemy" of logic and deduction?  :-)  And who do you think you are,
anyway, the Great Omnipotent Deity?!   :-) :-)

( However, in courtesy to you and the list, I agree not to post to this
thread again if you still feel a need to follow up with a last word.)

peace
aaron