@Indrid-Cold said in My new world view:
For a start, PP, massive kudos as ever for bringing an ambitious topic like this to the table.
Thanks Miseur!
I think there's something in this. Although I'd suggest you could equally apply such an existential hierarchy to the world by having a group of minds in the place of God -- maybe even the gestalt of the collective unconscious applied to the quantum consensus (Philip K Dick wrote a decent novel about such an idea - I think it was 'Ubik').
Well... you'd need some basis in which this group of minds can work. You need laws governing their interaction. You know? You need something above the group, that makes the group possible. You need quantum fields, or whatever. You need a nature for a group to work together, the interaction or possiblity of interaction must have some kind of rules or foundation. Aaaaaand.... we've arrived at God again.
But, I mean, your conception ...I don't really see how anyone would think this is a good thing. What is God's motivation or personality like that He expends so much time imagining the consciousnesses of disparate people?
Well, that is not unique to my conception, if you don't mind that objection. You can ask the very same question about creation itself.
And besides, he doesn't spend any time at all :yum:... Jokes aside we are talking about an infinite, unlimited being: I don't think that "so much" is the right way of putting things. I mean we are talking about the universe, which appears to be a finite thing. So, I think you might just as well ask, why the heck does he spend so little time, and so little energy on creation. I mean the universe is so incredibly finite, plain, small, insignificant, boring (even Salvador...)... in relation to Him.
it just shows a God with a very sophisticated form of schizophrenia, or one that doesn't respect idiosyncrasy or serendipity as concepts.
I don't quite understand how the existence of boring/rubbish/C--tish people makes for a disrespect in idiosyncrasy or serendipity. I'm not even sure I got a grasp on what those concepts mean to you. I would very much appreciate an explanation of what you mean by this.
For every really fascinating person like Salvador Dali or Che Guevara, there's countless millions of people who are boring, rubbish, or C's. And that's not necessarily me being unkind to boring, rubbish, or C--tish people:
As I said before, that argument can be brought up against creation just as much as against a creation that is in God's mind. So it does not – at least to my understanding – speak against this world view specifically, but against the existence of God, or rather against the existence of the God you imagine. A very wise old priest I knew once said: "When somebody tells me, that they don't believe in a God who is like this, then I always tell them, that I don't either." So, I'll go ahead and answer your enquiry to the existence of this God, with: nope, this God who cares so much about the boring-/rubbish-/C--tishness of people, does not exist.
The God I believe exists, values something other than "the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man." (or the beauty of one's mind). Instead He values in His little creations that which is important to Him: love, integrity, generosity, the will to sacrifice yourself, etc. And, knowing how worthless, evil and stupid we are (in relation to Him), He does what He loves most: He loves us to folly. I mean, he created us all to love us. That's the whole point of our existence. And what better to love than somebody as incapable of doing good than us? What needs more love than things like us?
He created us so He could give His own life, to save us from ourselves. It really is a beautiful story – at least in my head it looks like that :shrug:
Let me add of course, that the reason we are as bad as we are, is our own free will combined with quite the set of horrible choices in its usage :joy:. Another really important aspect of the whole image, without which God would really be an egoistic maniac.
