Philosophy Now Forum

As God, by definition of the title, I command that I'm defined by the latest poster's opinion.

Thank fuck you've finally turned up after all these years, god. They've been telling me for years that you're the p**** responsible for making me the way I am and I'd have to say that I'm not overly impressed with the quality of your workmanship. In particular I have some pointed criticisms to offer on the way you designed my hips. As I've gotten older these structures have given me increasingly more pain and grief, to the point where nowadays I am but a mere shadow of the finely-tuned athlete I once was. What were you thinking, you incompetent arsehole, when you decided to sit down and design a human being. If that's your idea of an "Intelligent Design" then you needn't bother submitting your resume to General Motors because there will be no career options for you there. A half-pissed engineering student with a smattering of biology could design a better ball joint for the human hip with his eyes shut. I have a considerable suite of similar examples where your blundering incompetence has been manifest and I'm here to tell you that my one and only life is not a practice run. Since I'm not going to get a second crack at it then neither are you. You're fired!!

Okay, so I'm fired. But I didn't know I was hired in the first place!? But upon reposting here, I reinstate my existence.

I rehired myself!

As God, you commanded to be defined by the first poster. Leo defined you as no longer God, thus you no longer have the divinity to do bugger all, especially redefine yourself. Sorry God, but you're done here.

Dalek Prime wrote:As God, you commanded to be defined by the first poster. Leo defined you as no longer God, thus you no longer have the divinity to do bugger all, especially redefine yourself. Sorry God, but you're done here.

But, I am defined 'God' as the first poster. And as 'God' I dictated that the last poster has the power to redefine who I am. While "God", as Leo can limit me by his definition, I reinstated this as "the latest [last] poster". You reconfirmed Leo's position as you became the latest. So while we remain inconsistent with ourselves, I am now the last poster again! And I say that God re-exists!

Scott Mayers wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:As God, you commanded to be defined by the first poster. Leo defined you as no longer God, thus you no longer have the divinity to do bugger all, especially redefine yourself. Sorry God, but you're done here.

But, I am defined 'God' as the first poster. And as 'God' I dictated that the last poster has the power to redefine who I am. While "God", as Leo can limit me by his definition, I reinstated this as "the latest [last] poster". You reconfirmed Leo's position as you became the latest. So while we remain inconsistent with ourselves, I am now the last poster again! And I say that God re-exists!

Oh, right. My mistake. Okay then, for this thread I am no longer Dalek Prime, but aliased as the latest/last poster. And God is a non-divine, keyboardless mute.

Perhaps I spoke too hastily, god, and you had good reasons for making such a godawful balls-up of your creation. I'm never at my best myself after a heavy night on the piss so perhaps you just woke up one morning after a big night with all the saints and angels etc feeling very second-hand and decided to make the universe out of spite. Anybody can have a lousy day at work, mate, so I'm now willing to give you a second chance provided you'll answer this question. When exactly was it that you claim to have made the universe and what the fuck have you been doing with your time since?

Obvious Leo wrote:Perhaps I spoke too hastily, god, and you had good reasons for making such a godawful balls-up of your creation. I'm never at my best myself after a heavy night on the piss so perhaps you just woke up one morning after a big night with all the saints and angels etc feeling very second-hand and decided to make the universe out of spite. Anybody can have a lousy day at work, mate, so I'm now willing to give you a second chance provided you'll answer this question. When exactly was it that you claim to have made the universe and what the fuck have you been doing with your time since?

I defined "God" specifically as "the first post" but the last post is what I later 'commanded' gets to redefine this for their sake. In other words, the last poster BECOMES the one who could define "God" and by implication IS "God" by the defining. Maybe I should have clarified this. But that's okay. I'm making myself clearer now here. If you, Leo, pose a question, you're questioning your own definition of "God" that you didn't clarify. This "God" doesn't have to be what others think it is. I could have began this thread with the title, "The first poster of this thread is X..." and from there that, the last poster gets to define "X". I did want to imply that this 'X' has some power akin to the gods we discuss in theology. In this sense, the only meaning I define "God" to mean otherwise is that whoever defines it has the power of being this 'X' and gets to define or redefine itself.

Thus, I have defined me now as this definition with more clarity. And so to your question, Leo, I didn't imply that I made the universe so can't respond fairly to that.

Scott Mayers wrote: Leo, I didn't imply that I made the universe so can't respond fairly to that.

Indeed you didn't and thus I stand corrected. I am but a humble wordsmith, Scott, and therefore I do not read the Tarot and alas my crystal ball is on the blink. I indulge the foibles of all mortals from time to time and leap to unwarranted assumptions on the basis of insufficient evidence. On this occasion I assumed you were referring to the god who is so regularly a central character in the many works of popular fiction with which any wordsmith is expected to be familiar. You appear to be man of letters yourself so you may have some knowledge of the god to which I refer. This misanthropic villain is universally held responsible for the creation of the universe by all needy folk who find themselves in need of such a fatuous psychological crutch.

I fear I owe you an apology for accusing you of manufacturing such a useless toy as a universe for yourself to play with because I can't for the life of me imagine what possible use such a frivolous gadget might be to an omnipotent and omniscient being. Am I correct in assuming that you are indeed an omnipotent and omniscient being?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: Leo, I didn't imply that I made the universe so can't respond fairly to that.

Indeed you didn't and thus I stand corrected. I am but a humble wordsmith, Scott, and therefore I do not read the Tarot and alas my crystal ball is on the blink. I indulge the foibles of all mortals from time to time and leap to unwarranted assumptions on the basis of insufficient evidence. On this occasion I assumed you were referring to the god who is so regularly a central character in the many works of popular fiction with which any wordsmith is expected to be familiar. You appear to be man of letters yourself so you may have some knowledge of the god to which I refer. This misanthropic villain is universally held responsible for the creation of the universe by all needy folk who find themselves in need of such a fatuous psychological crutch.

I fear I owe you an apology for accusing you of manufacturing such a useless toy as a universe for yourself to play with because I can't for the life of me imagine what possible use such a frivolous gadget might be to an omnipotent and omniscient being. Am I correct in assuming that you are indeed an omnipotent and omniscient being?

Well, this 'thread' is our universe here. I relieved my omnipotence by allowing the last poster to define our meaning to "God" here. But for the hell of it, let me propose my omnipotent nature by defining "God" as "that entity which has the maximum potency to create or alter anything in this universe (thread) at will."

Too late boys. I'm the latest/last poster, and I already defined god, above. Now, remain a well behaved, non-divine, silent god.

Obvious Leo wrote:I fear I owe you an apology for accusing you of manufacturing such a useless toy as a universe for yourself to play with because I can't for the life of me imagine what possible use such a frivolous gadget might be to an omnipotent and omniscient being.

Philipp Mainlander maintained that the universe was God himself, dispersed after his deicide, infecting his creations with a will to die, just as God himself had. I'm not saying Mainlander was correct, just giving you an imagined use the universe might have to such a being as god.