Benj96

I think emergent phenomenon can occur that are greater than the sum of their parts. For example the properties of water verses those of just hydrogen ...

Perhaps it was more a narrative that "one can become aware of a deep Truth" about the nature of being, and being the truth - its so convincing, so pot...

Nothingness only takes meaning from the existence of its opposite: somethingness. They require one another for context and meaning. You can't have all...

I have assumed that something cannot come of nothing. Correct. Because I'm at a loss as to how that would be possible logically speaking. If you can p...

Of course it doesn't. If they hold the truth then you don't know it. If they tell you, then you know it, and can use it for your own devices - benefic...

No it doesn't. It may be pragmatic to be an oppressive fascist dictator as its a very effective way of exerting your will and getting things done. Doe...

I'm not trying to limit it. It is vague /generalised already. What highly specified dogma have I asserted other than that if a fundamental truth exist...

I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case. Matters like ...

How complex do you want morality to be? Would you like it obscure, esoteric, out of reach, unintuitive? I think you'll find most religions are -at the...

No I'm not withdrawing it. Proceed as you will.

Sure, humans decide what is deemed "Word of God". Is that neccessarily opposed to what inspires them? Why so? Must they be in opposition, at odds? If ...

They are very different, you're correct. In one case we have those "allegedly" speaking on behalf of a God with no evidence. On the other hand you hav...

My interpretation of this is that whoever is "saved" or "damned" is up to their own conscience/moral compass. Guilt and shame is a powerful and self-i...

Well just to note a few: in Christianity, Jesus declares he is the son of God (has a direct relationship) and is interpreted as the earthly embodiment...

However, one can only decide for themselves whether they wish to spread it. And if they do share it, they too can be ignored or actively chastised/put...

And who propagates it? One person cannot propagate the "Word" by themselves alone. Especially if they're ignored by everyone they communicate with (op...

And no one has done that. Choice is the principle of the trilemma set out into the OP. One has the free will to share it, ignore it or oppose it. But ...

They are not. Ignorance is a lack or avoidance of knowledge when faced with such. Knowledge is simply knowledge. But if the case is that you're ignora...

Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy ...

This is option three - please refer to the OP. To actively oppose the truth and its spread.

There was no mention of it leading to happiness nor satisfaction. As a passive player, your circumstances are solely contingent on others who either k...

It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spr...

According to the OP you'd be offered "the Truth." You know it by reading it, therefore you may accept it (acknowledge), ignore it (ignorance) or objec...

As you'll see from the OP there are two options other than accept: Ignore (passive) or deny (actively oppose). You haven't offered a fourth alternativ...

Exactly. Each choice is accounted for already. One has free will to choose between the 3 choices but no free will to not choose anything. Ones hand is...

However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic. It is based on cho...

I think it would apply to all truths - scientific and technological discoveries etc however there would be a frame change here. The stakes/consequence...

Fair enough. Can't argue with God I guess. I'll just have to go back to re-learning the number line. "God forbid" I ever need more than 2 things but l...

Interesting. How would you characterise this being outside the realm of a universe? How would you distinguish it from "nothingness/total absence of be...

Isn't destruction and creation mutual and necessary opposites? As in for state A to transform into state B, state A is altered/augmented or entirely r...

Indeed there is a powerful emotive narrative embedded in the villain - victim dichotomy. An obvious follow up question in this respect is where does t...

In the sense you describe, "God" is forbidden to humans. Some form of innate violation of the laws of existence. And every attempt we make to bridge t...

That's three things. Are you omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and indifferent or does omnipresence not take part in this tetrad?

Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it. But we are as ...

Sounds like a boozy beer fest. I'm in. Do you think the disparity between how much knowledge any individual desires would cause issues? Perhaps person...

I guess that in itself is quite revealing/illuminating. You would be constantly pestered for details and logistics by not only me but everyone else, i...

Interesting. So you'd keep some distance basically. Reach towards or approach it (perhaps through communing or contemplating) but would never fully em...

Very true. You'd certainly run into problems if you were a physical/tangible God. For example if you were a God on this planet you would likely make e...

It is. Interesting. What I gather from this is you would have some sort of duality in your existence. On one side you would be a singular thing (human...

I think i see what you mean. So long as you do nothing, believers in your existence are free to imagine or contemplate your true nature? I suppose if ...

Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic....

I see, so as I understand, as a God you would hold the life and wellbeing of children in higher regard to any adult? Why is that exactly? What makes c...

Well, by offering you the full freedom of defining a God in absolutely any capacity that you desire, I would assume the question of "whether humans re...

So in this instance, you replace something that already existed rather than always being that thing from the get go/start? You say "continue" to do wh...

Yes that's all very well and said. But my question wasn't to exact a perfect and irrefutable definition of a God beyond human comprehension regardless...

I think intelligence is at its most basic a logical structure ingrained/fundamental within nature. A form of consistency or coherence that binds all t...

So you'd be a personified God/in human form? Why did you choose to be human or "human-seeming" in this scenario? Would you have no qualities beyond hu...

Ownership is an artificial construct where you apply an arbitrary personal authority over a physical object or domain, or an intellectual one - be it ...

How is it begging an objective ontology any more than it is begging a subjective one. I would have thought the assumption that the objective and subje...

Yes animals have rational thinking, due to the simple fact that survival instinct is a rational response in any living creature. Therefore: I am hungr...