66 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia_Nox]

@Rifneno:  Nope.  

 

The rules are not made for "Omniscient Omnipresent" beings who create them... they're made for "Ignorant, limited sapient" beings. 

 

It's like saying:  Bears hibernate in the winter.  And since I'm a mammal - even though clearly not a bear - I should also hibernate in the winter.

 

The Maker - if it is to be analogous with a Supreme God - is not just 'another being like you but more powerful'.  

 

And - in the end - it doesn't matter at all what you would consider such a being.  Compared to it - you are factually - not theoretically - irrelevant.  

 

====

 

Corypheus is evil because he wants to deprive other sapient beings of Free Will by becoming a god.

 

Which - is, of course, preposterous.  A sapient mortal would be unrecognizable as a Supreme Being if it were capable of transcending... Corypheus would become annihilated in totality as the limited nature of "Corypheus" simply cannot contain what it would mean to be 1) Omniscient 2) Omnipresent 3) Omnipotent.

 

The Maker - if it exists - "may" be evil (again, it is beyond it's rules) if it turns all sapient creatures back into animals.  That is to say - deprive them of free will and make them live according to the laws of the Natural world.  The world would be better - as sapient beings (at least in our world) are, as a whole, a destructive force - but it may not be richer.  

 

=====

 

@OctagonalSquare:  Governments don't ever follow their own rules (unless those rules serve the need of the government) - that is naive.

 

A better example might be a program.  A programmer writes a program called "Nature" and let's it run... but the Programmer is not affected or influenced by it because he is not IN the program.  So too - a Supreme Being is not IN the program running morality. 

[Heimdall]

Paintings and novels are not things to be followed. A better analogy would be a government making laws, and governments are bound by their own laws.
 
Unless the governors are tyrants, of course.

That doesn't work. The laws regarding government behavior are designed to regulate the government in relation to the people and its own various components. A government further being composed of people and created by people.

I'm not sure how you can liken that to a deity.

[Roamingmachine]

A creator-God that existed before "Creation" and thus brought it about is a different thing to me. Not in terms of worship, but in terms of the kind of power we're talking about. Someone who actually created everything else just seems different - a very different type of mythology, much less likely to be easily explained with reality. As the posts here show, a Creator-God has "no excuses" per se. If he doesn't intervene, it is only because he does not want to; his power is limitless. 

 

The power of the other God figures are limited. Very much so, if what we've learned of the Elven Gods is to be believed. 

In my faith, the world hatched from the egg laid by a member of the aythya family of birds. Wrap your head around that (yes it makes me chukle too) And yet the bird just flew off and the gods moved in and started doing godly things. Including forging the sky. Maybe this is why i regard creation myths were creation is attributed to a single god a spinwork made by the pr department (clergy) of that particular god: they are all kinda ridiculous. Thats why i just use power as a yardstick, gives me less of a headache than trying to figure out where the bloody bird came from to lay the egg

 But spindoctoring doesn't make godhood invalid, though (not aimed at you, just a pre-emptive disclaimer in case someone takes offence)

[LordParbr]

@Rifneno:  That's not true about Free Will.  It remains Free Will, because we are ignorant to the choices we are going to make.  If there is an omniscient being called The Maker, It knowing what choices you will make does not mean you were not free to make them.

 

As for the Blight - it was the Free Will of the magisters that condemned the world to the Blight.  Breaking into the Golden City took a phenomenal amount of resources for Tevinter and a level of hubris that makes Vivienne and Dorian seem positively humble.  

 

The Maker didn't "make" the Blight - if the Fade is understood at all.  The Fade is thought - hubris is what manifested the Blight and infected the Magisters.  The Blight is "the corrupting force of sapient entities upon their environment".  

 

Lastly - if I script a novel - I am not bound by the novel.  If I paint a picture - I am not bound by the constraints of that picture.  If I were The Maker - and I made morality - I would not be beholden to it.  That humans would expect a deity to be beholden to the rules it made for mortals - is not correct thinking.

 

As Solas says:  A true god does not have to prove itself.  

No, if it's pre-destined, then you aren't free to make the choice. You were always going to make the same decision. The "choice" is only an illusion. There wasn't actually one. Also, there's a good argument to be made for the absence of any kind of free will, even without determinism. Every choice you have ever, or will ever make is dictated by external stimuli. You never actually make a decision, "just because." Your "choices" are always dictated by something, therefore, it wasn't actually a choice.

As for the OP, it's Epicurus's "problem of evil:"

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Of course, the problem with Epicurus's reasoning is that he presupposes a personal god, but then he was mostly arguing against Christianity. There is a valid 3rd option. That being that God is just not interested in what we do.

As for DA lore, it does seem that things are leaning in the "the Maker doesn't exist" direction.

[LordParbr]

Those Gods made the world, though. The Elven Gods do not seem to have done that; they merely seem to have ruled it. 

 

My point isn't to denigrate other forms of worship (I'm agnostic). My point is that "God" has a different meaning if you remove it from Creation Myths, I think. If God is just someone with great power, that's especially complicated in a world where many people have powerful magic. 

 

The Maker is a different kind of God than that (and thus way less likely to be real). So while making the Elven Gods real, powerful Ancient Elves with magic is totally logical and story-consistent, verifying the existence of the Maker is much harder. From a story perspective. 

Not really, it just has to be a being clearly not of Thedas, who doesn't need mana to do magic.

Creation isn't a necessary requirement.

[LordParbr]

As for gods being bound by its own laws, it only makes sense that a creation deity's morality would be such a part of its creation that our moral values would be the same. Why make us any other way?

[Heimdall]

No, if it's pre-destined, then you aren't free to make the choice. You were always going to make the same decision. The "choice" is only an illusion. There wasn't actually one. Also, there's a good argument to be made for the absence of any kind of free will, even without determinism. Every choice you have ever, or will ever make is dictated by external stimuli. You never actually make a decision, "just because." Your "choices" are always dictated by something, therefore, it wasn't actually a choice.

I personally disagree that an omniscient deity knowing what choices people will make is incompatible with them having free will in making those choices.

As for DA lore, it does seem that things are leaning in the "the Maker doesn't exist" direction.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not to say that he exists, only that there's no particular evidence against his existence. I tend to see him as the sort of deity that created the world and then went strictly hands off.

[LordParbr]

I personally disagree that an omniscient deity knowing what choices people will make is incompatible with them having free will in making those choices.

Well, that's your choice, but it doesn't make any sense. If your decisions are foreseeable, then they weren't decisions. You were always going to do that particular thing at that particular time. Choice doesn't factor into it.

 

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not to say that he exists, only that there's no particular evidence against his existence. I tend to see him as the sort of deity that created the world and then went strictly hands off.

It's perfectly valid, but by that logic, we may as well believe that leprechauns exist.

[Star Reborn]

The Maker is the living Earth of Thedas itself. The Stone the Dwarves speak of. His/Her mind, the mind of Thedas is the Fade. It is influenced and reflected by the minds of the inhabitants of the world, directly and indirectly. The Dwarves, and Rivaini have a closer concept of it, the chantry kind of does, but then ruins it.

[LordParbr]

The Maker is the living Earth of Thedas itself. The Stone the Dwarves speak of. His/Her mind, the mind of Thedas is the Fade. It is influenced and reflected by the minds of the inhabitants of the world, directly and indirectly. The Dwarves, and Rivaini have a closer concept of it, the chantry kind of does, but then ruins it.

Well, it's reassuring to know that people are prone to baseless conjecture regarding the nature of reality and deities of fictional worlds too...

[berrieh]

In my faith, the world hatched from the egg laid by a member of the aythya family of birds. Wrap your head around that (yes it makes me chukle too) And yet the bird just flew off and the gods moved in and started doing godly things. Including forging the sky. Maybe this is why i regard creation myths were creation is attributed to a single god a spinwork made by the pr department (clergy) of that particular god: they are all kinda ridiculous. Thats why i just use power as a yardstick, gives me less of a headache than trying to figure out where the bloody bird came from to lay the egg

 But spindoctoring doesn't make godhood invalid, though (not aimed at you, just a pre-emptive disclaimer in case someone takes offence)

 

I'm not suggesting God-myths are the only Creation-myths, for the record.

 

I'm just saying that the other "Gods" are not creators, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. At least not the ones we've seen that are "real" (the elven ones). They aren't really "gods" by my definition at all - they're just really powerful. Now if someone wants to call all powerful beings "gods" then sure, but that makes the Inquisitor a god too, in my book. Maybe the legends will make her one, I'm not sure. That doesn't mean they aren't worth worshipping - you can worship your ancestors or a human woman if you want. I just don't think it puts them in the same "league" as the Maker (if he is real, which I sincerely doubt) and it certainly makes them easier to make real. 

 

I mean, I guess if I want to draw a line, anything that can be born in the natural world doesn't seem a true God to me. (And Andraste is not a god, but a prophet, so I'm fine with her. She is clearly real in some ways, whether her Maker is or not. Personally, I'm of the opinion she was a powerful mage who made it all up and knew she did, but did it to better the lives of the people.) 

[Nathair Nimheil]

You aren't going to solve the "Problem of Evil" conundrum that has plagued theologians of most religions for millenia in a forum thread on BSN.

I dunno, atheism solves it pretty completely and only takes one sentence to explain.
 

Well, that's your choice, but it doesn't make any sense. If your decisions are foreseeable, then they weren't decisions.

That is exactly right. If I KNOW what you are going to do then you MUST do that thing. If I have foreknowledge then you don't have choice, if you have choice then I can not have foreknowledge. (Things to keep in mind when designing your deity.)
 

[Draining Dragon]

Yeah, okay, this thread is not going to end well.

[Heimdall]

Well, that's your choice, but it doesn't make any sense. If your decisions are foreseeable, then they weren't decisions. You were always going to do that particular thing at that particular time. Choice doesn't factor into it.

I don't think having choice is the same as being unpredictable and unknowable.

It's perfectly valid, but by that logic, we may as well believe that leprechauns exist.

It doesn't hurt to be open minded

[Nathair Nimheil]

I don't think having choice is the same as being unpredictable and unknowable.

But it is, by definition. Say I present you with two doors and ask you to pick one, since I'm omniscient I know with absolute certainty you are going to pick door number two. Where is your choice? You may feel like you have choice but (if I am actually omniscient) you must pick door number two, you have absolutely no choice in the matter, you are just an actor in the play following my copy of the script.

 

(Of course science has pretty convincingly shown that we don't have conscious free will anyway, regardless of deities, so...)

[SwobyJ]

If the Maker is omniscient and exists beyond the Fade and Thedas, then by Thedosian definition, it could very well 'know' all that happens, did happen, and will happen in Thedas in the sense that a programmer could go through all the worldly code and suppose certain things, have a plan, that sort of thing.

 

He's still beyond everyone, still all powerful, still can know everything about Thedas, but still not be the ultramegaeverything being - still being 'The Maker', not 'Everything'.

 

The Maker can be considered the largest authority on everything in Dragon Age, but he can't be understood to actually be everything. His omniscience is not omnipresence, so there's still the tiny wiggleroom to surprise him when it comes to the how everything works together along with its relationship to him.

 

TLDR; The Maker's omniscience still may have to do with the realms he's created, not the Beyond that also includes himself. He's the Father and Andraste is his Bride, already implying that there are mortal conceptions that can be attributed to him. This sounds like it is beyond the Creators, but still possibly kin to their nature (not the same thing, but possibly similar ideas happening in some ways).

[SwobyJ]

But it is, by definition. Say I present you with two doors and ask you to pick one, since I'm omniscient I know with absolute certainty you are going to pick door number two. Where is your choice? You may feel like you have choice but (if I am actually omniscient) you must pick door number two, you have absolutely no choice in the matter, you are just an actor in the play following my copy of the script.

 

(Of course science has pretty convincingly shown that we don't have conscious free will anyway, regardless of deities, so...)

 

I can pick door Number Two. I think I'm free, but I'm not.

 

You can know I'll pick door Number Two and act accordingly to this knowledge. You think you have control, but you don't.

 

The unknown factors outside both of us that even put us in the situation of both doors being considered does not have an interest and acts in totality of everything, but yet it still doesn't, as it relies on me picking door Number Two and you knowing that I'll pick door Number Two, and it is 'bound' by that.

 

I may be just an actor, or rather a character, but the play needs to still happen. In that, I am free. Taking that freedom away means the play is wrecked and all that the play affects (inspiring others, encouraging business, etc etc) is for the worse. The character (me) needs to be able to do things that surprise even the script, an the script/director needs to loosen the reigns for best results.

 

The Maker may be able to know everything but that doesn't mean he'll let himself know everything. The gist of the Chantry is that he's turning his attention away from Thedas in the hope (inspired by Andraste) that he'll hear the Chant of Light and turn back to Thedas. So it sounds more like he COULD know everything, but willfully doesn't, along with his ultimate knowledge nevertheless still being limited in the greater cosmic sense beyond Thedas+Fade.

[Heimdall]

But it is, by definition. Say I present you with two doors and ask you to pick one, since I'm omniscient I know with absolute certainty you are going to pick door number two. Where is your choice? You may feel like you have choice but (if I am actually omniscient) you must pick door number two, you have absolutely no choice in the matter, you are just an actor in the play following my copy of the script.

It isn't your script. Knowing what my choices will be doesn't mean you control them or that I lack control, only that you know.

[Nathair Nimheil]

His omniscience is not omnipresence, so there's still the tiny wiggleroom to surprise him

Omniscience means "all knowing", not "almost all knowing", not "all knowing but with a tiny bit of wiggleroom for stuff that happens over... there".

The simplest way to deal with it is just abandon omniscience. I don't see why anyone would want to attribute that to anyone with complete power, it instantly destroys all narrative. (It is totally awesome plot device for someone without power though, the curse of Cassandra and all that.) Gods with limits, gods that take risks and make mistakes are way more fun.

[Nathair Nimheil]

It isn't your script. Knowing what my choices will be doesn't mean you control them or that I lack control, only that you know.

OK then, could you explain exactly what choice you are making? If I know you are going to pick door number two, then what?

 

You can quibble about who "owns" the script or "who" is doing to "controlling", those are really irrelevant. The fact remains that if it is known then you must do. "Must" and "choice" are direct opposites.

[Heimdall]

OK then, could you explain exactly what choice you are making? If I know you are going to pick door number two, then what?

You can quibble about who "owns" the script or "who" is doing to "controlling", those are really irrelevant. The fact remains that if it is known then you must do. "Must" and "choice" are direct opposites.

I just don't see knowing my actions as the same as controlling them. I'm not choosing door number two because the script says so. The script says so because I make the choice. That the script knew I would is really inconsequential.

[Tevinter Soldier]

the Dev's said they will never say if the maker exists the point of faith, is faith. there's no truth in religion there's belief and i think it's great that it's being kept this way. you need or want the maker to exist, for you he can. you don't need or want the maker to exist, for you he doesn't. Of course where it trumps the real world is you don't exist in someone's head canon as such there's no need to argue about how you view thedas, there's no right or wrong unless it conflicts with the lore.

 

for example i could head canon andraste was a lunatic that heard voices and that the blight was actually a weaponised virus that fell to thedas during the reaper war and there's not a damn thing any of you can do about it.

[Nathair Nimheil]

You can know I'll pick door Number Two and act accordingly to this knowledge. You think you have control, but you don't.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't mean to assert that having knowledge equates with having control. If anyone, anywhere has perfect knowledge then nobody has any control or any real power.
 

The unknown factors outside both of us

There's the rub. If there is omniscience, there are no unknown factors. That is what omniscience means.

[SwobyJ]

Omniscience means "all knowing", not "almost all knowing", not "all knowing but with a tiny bit of wiggleroom for stuff that happens over... there".

The simplest way to deal with it is just abandon omniscience. I don't see why anyone would want to attribute that to anyone with complete power, it instantly destroys all narrative. (It is totally awesome plot device for someone without power though, the curse of Cassandra and all that.) Gods with limits, gods that take risks and make mistakes are way more fun.

 

You don't know what omniscience means imo.

 

It can be used in several ways. Even a quick definition search will clarify that there is inherent omniscience and total omniscience. There is "You CAN know everything" and there is "You DO know everything". Omniscient can be either.

 

One can view something onmisciently while deciding to not be omniscient about another thing. All the while being properly called "omniscient"

 

 

This is even trickier when you don't know whether the Maker knows everything about himself. If he interacts with the world, but doesn't know everything about himself and what he'll do, does he truly know everything? Even if he knows everything about the world?

 

This is why I used the programmer-vs-code analogy. The Maker could very well figure anything out, but he doesn't necessarily know it all, all of the time. Nor may he want to. ('turned his back')

 

~~~

EDIT: If you want to quibble about the 'omni' part, omnisexual, for example, doesn't mean that one feels attraction towards all. It means one CAN feel attraction towards all, because gender/sex isn't a factor. That there is no barrier to being sexual with anyone.

Omniscient can easily mean that the Maker CAN decide to know about all, but it doesn't mean he automatically knows everything about everything at all times. He could very well decide not to, or to prioritize his attention on some things over other things. Omniscient can be just as much about possibilities as it is about capabilities.

[Rifneno]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not to say that he exists, only that there's no particular evidence against his existence. I tend to see him as the sort of deity that created the world and then went strictly hands off.

Except for that time he got the hots for a married woman.

The Maker's kind of a douchebag.