The God that wants to be Human
12/05/2010 § Mag-iwan ng puna
“There is no spoon.” This is on of the many lines from the movie The Matrix. It is also a line that a believer of the theatrical model will probably say.
According to this belief system, each one of us (including animals, plants, bacteria, etc.) are simply characters role-played by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god so that he can experience excitement. This is merely a belief and hence unprovable, but even if we assume that the said premise is true, it will only give birth to logical and social problems.
First, if this god is unbound by perception (hence omniscient), therefore it can not possibly feel excitement. The theatrical model fixes this by saying that this world is just an illusion created by the said god, in order to feel excitement (and him being omnipotent made this possible). But again, his omniscience gives him knowledge of everything about this “pseudo-world.” If, in a game of Pacman, you know everything, not just how it works, but EVERYTHING: the position of the ghosts at any specific time, their speed, their route,the exact occurrence of the cherry-bonus, etc.; if you know you’ll win and exactly how, would you still bother playing it for excitement? We are then told that he can switch his omniscience on and off. Therefore, at the time that he is playing this game, he is not omniscient.
Second, if he is also unbound by the laws of physics (hence omnipotent), he also will be unable to feel excitement (which brings into question him being omnipotent in the first place). He will not enjoy, in the same way that you will not enjoy Pacman if you can eat anything at anytime (the ghost, the walls, etc.) – because it would remove from the game the challenge of possibly losing. And so, the model states that this god is, after all, bound by the rules of the “game,” and in effect, is not anymore omnipotent.
Third, if he is unbound by space (hence omnipresent), and is everyone everywhere every time, again, there would be no room for excitement. If in Pacman, you are also the one controlling the ghosts, the bullets, and the walls, would you still feel excited? Or in a better example, would you play chess alone, in hopes of getting excited? It seems, that in order for this god to be excited, he must drop his omnipresence.
And if this god is not omniscient, not omnipotent, and not omnipresent, then why would we call him god? Thinking of it, the previous three paragraphs also disputes almost every characteristic (except omnibenevolence) of the potter’s models’ idea of god.
Lastly, and most importantly, believing in this kind of belief system seems to turn someone more individualistic. As it tells us that life’s ultimate goal is to search for our own and personal excitement/happiness. It does not consider everyone/everything else but the self. If, your happiness is to behead people, you would be right in doing it. And if another’s happiness is to catch people who behead people, he would also be right in doing it. And this is a problem since both of you are right, even if you have conflicting ideas.
Someone believing this system, after reading up to this point, would probably say something like: “okay, if this is your happiness, then so be it.” This is another problem since the belief doesn’t care about anyone or anything else! And not caring tends to promote inequality, injustice, conflicts, ignorance, violence, poverty, discrimination, stasis, and chaos.
If I were the spoon-holding kid talking to Neo at that time, I would have said instead: “There is this is spoon. And there is your will to bend it. Express that will with concrete action and bend this spoon the fastest way – with your arms.”
[May 12, 2010; reaction paper sa Art Stud~]