702 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

I'm having trouble visualizing how this would work in practice. What would be the actual sensory data that would be causing our minds to crumble, and how would this be any different from what a sufficiently advanced mage could do?

Of course, being unable to visualize it is kind of the point, but then we're just positing that such an experience could happen.

 

it would probably be the sensory projection of god themself, as in, bodily presence, voice, etc, appearance, all those things. 

 

There isn't really a difference, technically, with a super advanced mage, but the way we currently observe "reality" would decisively and dramatically transform to something else entirely. 

[Kabraxal]

I'm having trouble visualizing how this would work in practice. What would be the actual sensory data that would be causing our minds to crumble, and how would this be any different from what a sufficiently advanced mage could do?

Of course, being unable to visualize it is kind of the point, but then we're just positing that such an experience could happen.

 

A mage would have to choose to act in order to "alter reality" in any meaningful way.  Think about how, in Inquisition, every action is a conscious effort of will, even the ability to control minds with blood magic.  The mere existence of the mage does not warp or alter reality so completely as to be unaffected by it.  He or she, is in fact, completely shaped by the realities around them.  An actual "God" manifesting would alter everything around it just by virtue of its existence.   Reality could not bear the weight of such a complete realization of power, understanding, will, and all that would encompass that type of godhood. 

 

It's hard to use limited words to describe it or even metaphors... I guess the best way is simply saying when you look at a "super mage god" you simply see a being.  When you look at an actual "God", you see every facet of existence in one point.....  Seeing "A being" compared to seeing "the act of being". There would be no mistaking what you are being exposed to. 

[AlanC9]

A mage would have to choose to act in order to "alter reality" in any meaningful way.  Think about how, in Inquisition, every action is a conscious effort of will, even the ability to control minds with blood magic.  The mere existence of the mage does not warp or alter reality so completely as to be unaffected by it.  He or she, is in fact, completely shaped by the realities around them.  An actual "God" manifesting would alter everything around it just by virtue of its existence.   Reality could not bear the weight of such a complete realization of power, understanding, will, and all that would encompass that type of godhood.

But I was talking about the experience of an external observer, not the subjective experience of the god itself
 
I don't see how we get from the above to this:

It's hard to use limited words to describe it or even metaphors... I guess the best way is simply saying when you look at a "super mage god" you simply see a being.  When you look at an actual "God", you see every facet of existence in one point.....  Seeing "A being" compared to seeing "the act of being". There would be no mistaking what you are being exposed to.

What would I be seeing?

[Kabraxal]

But I was talking about the experience of an external observer, not the subjective experience of the god itself
 
I don't see how we get from the above to this:


What would I be seeing?

 

I think your issue is you are thinking too linearly and materialistically.  You want a defined outline of something that would be both finite in manifestation, but infinite in its existence.  There are reasons the Gnostic Christian god was repressed and why many try to strip "God" of any personal identity or greatly reduce the scope of he/she/it... the inherent contradiction of being a defined being yet being everything, everytime, and everywhere is something that most struggle to even begin to make "sense" within our limited reality. 

 

And that is exactly how you would know what you are seeing is more than a super mage.  There is no act of creation.  There is no destruction.  There is no wave of the hand to display great power.  It simply is seeing the entirety of existence in one form that would prove this type of "God". 

 

Of course, the bigger question in terms of that would then be.... after witnessing it, would you become that "God"?  Or where you always that "God" to begin with since you would naturally "see" yourself within all of that?  Philosophy is wonderfully mind breaking and only good to make one insane, isn't it....

[Iakus]

I said nothing about destroying the world.  I am simply stating that the all encompassing, omnipotent/omniscient style of god would simply shatter any and rules of "reality".  If such a god manifested itself, the simple illusion we call reality would warp and crumble and our tiny little brains would be exposed to the full brunt of actual reality.  There would be no questioning what you are meeting at that point.  No displays of actual power.  No creation or discussion.  Just the simple act of being would crush any illusion they are a simple over powered mage.

 

I must admit, you make God sound like a Great Old One  

[Iakus]

But I was talking about the experience of an external observer, not the subjective experience of the god itself
 
I don't see how we get from the above to this:


What would I be seeing?

You would be seeing why God doesn't need a starship

 

I think your issue is you are thinking too linearly and materialistically.  You want a defined outline of something that would be both finite in manifestation, but infinite in its existence.  There are reasons the Gnostic Christian god was repressed and why many try to strip "God" of any personal identity or greatly reduce the scope of he/she/it... the inherent contradiction of being a defined being yet being everything, everytime, and everywhere is something that most struggle to even begin to make "sense" within our limited reality. 

 

And that is exactly how you would know what you are seeing is more than a super mage.  There is no act of creation.  There is no destruction.  There is no wave of the hand to display great power.  It simply is seeing the entirety of existence in one form that would prove this type of "God". 

 

Of course, the bigger question in terms of that would then be.... after witnessing it, would you become that "God"?  Or where you always that "God" to begin with since you would naturally "see" yourself within all of that?  Philosophy is wonderfully mind breaking and only good to make one insane, isn't it....

“Chandana said the ship was dead.  We trusted him.  He was right.  But even a dead god can dream.  A god,a real god, is a verb.  Not some old man with magic powers.  It's a force.  It warps reality just by being there. It doesn't have to want to.  It doesn't have to think about it.  It just does.  That's what Chandana didn't get.  Not until it was too late.  The god's mind is gone but it still dreams.  He knows now.  He's tuned in on our dreams.  If I close my eyes I can feel him.  I can feel every one of us.”

 

[Kabraxal]

I must admit, you make God sound like a Great Old One  

 

Those do usually tend to be closer to it don't they... but then, I think it is human tendency to try and humanize such a foreign concept so it is familiar and not too unsetting.

[AlanC9]

I think your issue is you are thinking too linearly and materialistically.  You want a defined outline of something that would be both finite in manifestation, but infinite in its existence. 

Exactly so. All I have access to is the linear, material, and finite. My senses don't pick up anything else (assuming there actually is something else and this isn't all just noise.)

Are we supposed to have other senses that don't function because we aren't encountering the right stimuli to trigger them? I don't have any reason to believe that those senses exist.

[Kabraxal]

Exactly so. All I have access to is the linear, material, and finite. My senses don't pick up anything else (assuming there actually is something else and this isn't all just noise.)

Are we supposed to have other senses that don't function because we aren't encountering the right stimuli to trigger them? I don't have any reason to believe that those senses exist.

 

That is the point.  This manifestation of "God" would break your perceptual limitations in every manner possible.  This "God" is so beyond what we view as reality that we would naturally be exposed to things we hadn't encountered or percieved. 

 

You must realise, though, that I don't believe in a physical, objective reality at all.  So I probably have far less philosophical obstructions in trying to comprehend an idea that is clearly antagonistic to the modern obsession with a physical, objective reality controlling the entirety of anything within it. 

[Ghost Gal]

BioWare's Favoritism to Andrastianism: Yeah, it's real.

 

Sera hates both human nobles and "elfy" elves--the former because they actively abuse and oppress the common folk every day, the latter because they can be a bit snotty to people they deem "not elfy enough." Yet, Sera only forces an ultimatum on a Dalish girlfriend and not a human noble one. If she'd forced Trevelyan to choose between their noble title and their relationship, Trevelyan fans would have had a sh*t hemmorage. But since she only does it to Lavellan - forces you to either give up / denounce your entire "elfy" religion and culture or get dumped - the devs, the narrative, and the majority of the fandom expect the player to just accept it.

[AlanC9]

That is the point.  This manifestation of "God" would break your perceptual limitations in every manner possible.  This "God" is so beyond what we view as reality that we would naturally be exposed to things we hadn't encountered or perceived.

How would it break my perceptual limitations? My eyes and ears would only able to pick up the same frequencies they always have, my chemical senses would pick up the same compounds they do now, and my touch neurons would fire the same way they always have.

I can see getting a jumble of data that I couldn't process. I don't see how such stimuli come across as anything but noise.

You must realise, though, that I don't believe in a physical, objective reality at all.  So I probably have far less philosophical obstructions in trying to comprehend an idea that is clearly antagonistic to the modern obsession with a physical, objective reality controlling the entirety of anything within it.

So in effect you are saying that we have, or could have, different senses that we aren't using now. We're not just limited to the physical senses I mentioned above.

OK. I think this is nonsense, but you can't prove a negative.

[Melbella]

BioWare's Favoritism to Andrastianism: Yeah, it's real.
 
Sera hates both human nobles and "elfy" elves--the former because they actively abuse and oppress the common folk every day, the latter because they can be a bit snotty to people they deem "not elfy enough." Yet, Sera only forces an ultimatum on a Dalish girlfriend and not a human noble one. If she'd forced Trevelyan to choose between their noble title and their relationship, Trevelyan fans would have had a sh*t hemmorage. But since she only does it to Lavellan - forces you to either give up / denounce your entire "elfy" religion and culture or get dumped - the devs, the narrative, and the majority of the fandom expect the player to just accept it.

Or you could, you know, just not romance Sera. Problem solved.

[MisterJB]

Any real god would be indistinguishable from a super-powered mage.

Of course a real god would distinguishable.

A super powered mage would still be an individual with a limited scope of existence who began to exist at a point in time and would have his own limitations such as, for instance, Solas' inability to awaken the Orb.

 

A god, a real God, would be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, he would everything and everyone, he would exist at all points in time simultaneously, etc.
 

Hence, the simple ability to alter reality is not enough to call something a God with capital G.

[Iakus]

How would it break my perceptual limitations? My eyes and ears would only able to pick up the same frequencies they always have, my chemical senses would pick up the same compounds they do now, and my touch neurons would fire the same way they always have.

I can see getting a jumble of data that I couldn't process. I don't see how such stimuli come across as anything but noise.
 

 

Such "noise" can be quite discomforting or even painful.

 

Do you suffer from vertigo?  Or try and see one of those Magic Eye things? (ro some other headach-inducing patterns?)  Or pick up the high pitched whine of an electrical light just on the edge of hearing?

 

I imagine it would be something like that, but like a zillion times worse.  You are experiencing something that shouldn't, to your senses, be.  Yet is is.  Yet it shouldn't be, yet...And on and on and on...

 

 

 

So in effect you are saying that we have, or could have, different senses that we aren't using now. We're not just limited to the physical senses I mentioned above.

OK. I think this is nonsense, but you can't prove a negative.

IN the end, it's all speculation.  Unless someone here has personal experience they aren't telling us...

[Iakus]

Of course a real god would distinguishable.

A super powered mage would still be an individual with a limited scope of existence who began to exist at a point in time and would have his own limitations such as, for instance, Solas' inability to awaken the Orb.

 

A god, a real God, would be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, he would everything and everyone, he would exist at all points in time simultaneously, etc.
 

Hence, the simple ability to alter reality is not enough to call something a God with capital G.

Again, depends on your definition of a "real god"

 

Zeus, to go back to the previous example, was a king of the gods, but was born and grew up.  And for all his power, could not oppose what the Fates decreed.  He'd even been known to lose the occasional fight against a monster.

 

Heck in the Iliad, the Greek hero Diomedes attacked three different gods in the same battle, wounding two of them, including the freaking GOD OF WAR Ares himself! (okay he has an assist from Athena with that one)

 

So there can be gods with limits.

[KaiserShep]

BioWare's Favoritism to Andrastianism: Yeah, it's real.
 
Sera hates both human nobles and "elfy" elves--the former because they actively abuse and oppress the common folk every day, the latter because they can be a bit snotty to people they deem "not elfy enough." Yet, Sera only forces an ultimatum on a Dalish girlfriend and not a human noble one. If she'd forced Trevelyan to choose between their noble title and their relationship, Trevelyan fans would have had a sh*t hemmorage. But since she only does it to Lavellan - forces you to either give up / denounce your entire "elfy" religion and culture or get dumped - the devs, the narrative, and the majority of the fandom expect the player to just accept it.

Man, giving up a noble title would be way worse than some elfy gobbledegook, because you'd actually be abandoning a great deal of tangible things on top of actual family members (which is an even bigger deal if you happen to really like them).

[Seraphim24]

Again, depends on your definition of a "real god"

 

Zeus, to go back to the previous example, was a king of the gods, but was born and grew up.  And for all his power, could not oppose what the Fates decreed.  He'd even been known to lose the occasional fight against a monster.

 

Heck in the Iliad, the Greek hero Diomedes attacked three different gods in the same battle, wounding two of them, including the freaking GOD OF WAR Ares himself! (okay he has an assist from Athena with that one)

 

So there can be gods with limits.

 

Not just "gods" even an original primary Maker God can have limits. 

 

For practical purposes, I simply think the "god" in mythology was no indivisible super being, but rather simply an actual, living, breathing, human being, and in a  sense, no different from any other human being. 

 

The difference was that they were just so overwhelmingly awesome as a person, people could only phrase such a person in such extremes as being like non-senorially perceptible and all that. 

 

I think the same for all the gods in other mythologies, Zeus, Chronos, Odin, Isis, Horus, all people..

 

The "gods" of the past were simply akin to what "celebrities" are now, in many respects, although with the important distinction, that, until recently, preferences were existed in favor of some individuals and not others based on artificial moral preferences. 

 

Well, to be fair, that was true in the past as well. 

 

For example, Matt Damon plays like every major figure from mythology or something, which is you know, stupid, but a bazillion people have already made all those arguments and such. 

[Bayonet Hipshot]

BioWare's Favoritism to Andrastianism: Yeah, it's real.

 

Sera hates both human nobles and "elfy" elves--the former because they actively abuse and oppress the common folk every day, the latter because they can be a bit snotty to people they deem "not elfy enough." Yet, Sera only forces an ultimatum on a Dalish girlfriend and not a human noble one. If she'd forced Trevelyan to choose between their noble title and their relationship, Trevelyan fans would have had a sh*t hemmorage. But since she only does it to Lavellan - forces you to either give up / denounce your entire "elfy" religion and culture or get dumped - the devs, the narrative, and the majority of the fandom expect the player to just accept it.

 

I always found that odd. Sera hates nobles. but never confronts Trevelyan about her nobility and does not make her choose between her nobility and Sera. 

[Illegitimus]

I always found that odd. Sera hates nobles. but never confronts Trevelyan about her nobility and does not make her choose between her nobility and Sera. 

 

Trevelyan doesn't have a title.  There's nothing to give up.  

[KaiserShep]

I always found that odd. Sera hates nobles. but never confronts Trevelyan about her nobility and does not make her choose between her nobility and Sera. 

 

 

This is a misconception about the character. Sera would only confront Trevelyan if she was abusing her position for personal gain, which has typically been the case of the nobles she went after (like Pel Harmond). She doesn't target them indiscriminately. 

[MisterJB]

Again, depends on your definition of a "real god"

 

Zeus, to go back to the previous example, was a king of the gods, but was born and grew up.  And for all his power, could not oppose what the Fates decreed.  He'd even been known to lose the occasional fight against a monster.

 

Heck in the Iliad, the Greek hero Diomedes attacked three different gods in the same battle, wounding two of them, including the freaking GOD OF WAR Ares himself! (okay he has an assist from Athena with that one)

 

So there can be gods with limits.

 

But that is just it. Zeus, who had a father, was born, did not create the universe, was fallible, etc, is the super powered mages Ieldra refers to.

Certainly, there can be people who are cowed into accepting such a being as a "god", but by such a standard, anyone who is sufficiently popular with someone could be a "god".
 

[Shechinah]

This discussion sounds interesting but I am not sure I quite understand it so I'll ask; is it about how a god should exhibit a specific set of traits or such to qualify as a legitimate god?

[Illegitimus]

But that is just it. Zeus, who had a father, was born, did not create the universe, was fallible, etc, is the super powered mages Ieldra refers to.

Certainly, there can be people who are cowed into accepting such a being as a "god", but by such a standard, anyone who is sufficiently popular with someone could be a "god".

 

In a semantic dispute I like to check out the dictionaries.  Let's see how they define "god" in the lower case:

 

:   a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

 

 

or

 

one of the male spirits or beings with special powers that people in some religions believe in and worship

 

 

or

 

(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:

 

The Evanuris and the Old Gods qualify.  Sure, they may pale before what is said about the Maker.  But then again, one difference between them and the Maker, is that we know they exist.  

[AlanC9]

But that is just it. Zeus, who had a father, was born, did not create the universe, was fallible, etc, is the super powered mages Ieldra refers to.
Certainly, there can be people who are cowed into accepting such a being as a "god", but by such a standard, anyone who is sufficiently popular with someone could be a "god".

I think we have to say that is the case. A definition of "god" which excludes Zeus would just leave us scrambling to come up with another term which did include Zeus. Same thing for the Evanuris.

[Iakus]

But that is just it. Zeus, who had a father, was born, did not create the universe, was fallible, etc, is the super powered mages Ieldra refers to.

Certainly, there can be people who are cowed into accepting such a being as a "god", but by such a standard, anyone who is sufficiently popular with someone could be a "god".
 

That's kind of the point.  Over thousands of years and six continents worth of religions, there have been a lot of definitions for what a "god" is, from the omnipotent/omniscient old man with a long white beard to personifications of nature to ancestor spirits to anthropomorphic personifications of various facets of life.  Being immortal, or all-powerful is not in everyone's definition of what a "god" is.

 

Zeus may be the definition of a "super-powered mage"  but to the ancient Greeks, he was a god.  And the head of a pantheon of gods to boot.