"You saved yourself"

"I didn't save you kid, you saved yourself."

Ok, is it just me? Or in the Animatrix movie "Kid's Story" doesn't Neo save the kid? He's the one who called him and told him to get out. I think Neo just says stuff like that to act cool.

I don't think it's just to act cool, it may be because the kid is always after him or something else, i don't know...

I think that it is because he is trying to get rid of the kid who is acting like he is god. Which I think is near to the truth.

That's a pretty troublesome story, given that the Matrix is
specifically designed to be just like our "reality." There are way
too many troubled people who are also heavily into the Matrix. I
certainly hope Kid's Story doesn't give them the final push to
suicide simply because they think they're in a matrix of their
own. The worst part is they would be killing themselves thinking
it was enlightenment. That's as stupid as Jim Jones. Would you
like some Kool-Aid, too?

DNT5, yes, it's the same kid. Let there be no doubt. The same
funky eye brows. The same goofy demeaner. Niobe details
Osiris's findings before its fate. Niobe: "These geotherms confirm
the last transmission of the Osiris. The machines are digging.
They're boring from the surface straight down to Zion." This is
exactly where the Osiris was, before having thousands of
squiddies chase them to their doom.

I could have done without Kid's Story ever making it past the
screening room.

Poppers was able to wake him self up with out a red pill. At the end Trinity said it herself that she didn't think it was possible. I don't remember the exact term. I'd look it up, but I'm at work right now.

ETAPhase, I totally agree with you on that. I found it real disturbing given how many people even at this site feel that we are immersed in a matrix, so you know there are a lot of others in the world that feel the same way.

You take those people, show them Kid's Story, romanticize that line 'you have to give up everything to learn the truth' (was that the line? My brain paraphrases more than I care to admit..).

I have to say, that was the prettiest way to convey suicide with a positive spin. They could have inferred it much better than that, or had it narrated or something.

Or maybe I am just getting old and not seeing it the right way.

-WC-

Suicide is a recommended form of exit in the game because the movie and the game are predominantly Gnostic, which is a heretical form of Christianity. Gnostics believe each person is a spark of divinity trapped in the evil mud-like prison of the physical world by an evil demi-god, and the only way to remove ourselves is to die WITH the knowledge necessary to move beyond the prison.

This has a couple of logical consequences:
1) Sex that results in procreation is sinful because it traps a divine spark in the prison of the physical world.
2) Once the divine knowledge has been attained, suicide becomes a sacrament.

This has actually played out several times amongst Gnostic Christians, the most notable example being the Albigensians of the 12th century, who used the "consolatum" as the sacrament of suicide. Once someone decided to off themselves, the bishop laid hands on them and then the purpose drank poison or had someone else smother them. Sometimes, they starved themselves to death. If they survived the (assisted) suicide attempt and changed their minds, they were killed anyway.

Marriage was considered a great sin because it led to sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse was at all times forbidden.

The guys who offed themselves while waiting for the spaceship that followed the comet a few years back out in California were Gnostics. Remember how all the guys had gotten castrated? That was the reason. They all also dressed in black....

This is why Larry Wachowski's sex change operation is probably true. It also means Larry will probably commit suicide within the next decade. He reads more philosophy than his brother - he knows the logical consequences of his beliefs, and the movie shows that both brothers follow logical consequences rigourously.

It is not at all surprising that suicide is encouraged in the game. They can't put that stuff in the movie - too many parents would notice. But they CAN put it in the game, because parents don't have time to play or track the content of games. It's a neat way around parental control - hook the kids with the movie, then deliver the suicide message through the game associated with the movie. A very elegant solution to the problem of disseminating Gnostic philosophy to untrained minds.

Very interesting reading, I never knew that about Gnostics. Thank you.

I also thought that Larry was rumored to be a cross-dresser, not sex changed.

-WC-

that the best anmatrix is "a didective story"

Originally posted by fiatlux
Suicide is a recommended form of exit in the game because the movie and the game are predominantly Gnostic, which is a heretical form of Christianity. Gnostics believe each person is a spark of divinity trapped in the evil mud-like prison of the physical world by an evil demi-god, and the only way to remove ourselves is to die WITH the knowledge necessary to move beyond the prison.

This has a couple of logical consequences:
1) Sex that results in procreation is sinful because it traps a divine spark in the prison of the physical world.
2) Once the divine knowledge has been attained, suicide becomes a sacrament.

This has actually played out several times amongst Gnostic Christians, the most notable example being the Albigensians of the 12th century, who used the "consolatum" as the sacrament of suicide. Once someone decided to off themselves, the bishop laid hands on them and then the purpose drank poison or had someone else smother them. Sometimes, they starved themselves to death. If they survived the (assisted) suicide attempt and changed their minds, they were killed anyway.

Marriage was considered a great sin because it led to sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse was at all times forbidden.

The guys who offed themselves while waiting for the spaceship that followed the comet a few years back out in California were Gnostics. Remember how all the guys had gotten castrated? That was the reason. They all also dressed in black....

This is why Larry Wachowski's sex change operation is probably true. It also means Larry will probably commit suicide within the next decade. He reads more philosophy than his brother - he knows the logical consequences of his beliefs, and the movie shows that both brothers follow logical consequences rigourously.

It is not at all surprising that suicide is encouraged in the game. They can't put that stuff in the movie - too many parents would notice. But they CAN put it in the game, because parents don't have time to play or track the content of games. It's a neat way around parental control - hook the kids with the movie, then deliver the suicide message through the game associated with the movie. A very elegant solution to the problem of disseminating Gnostic philosophy to untrained minds.
fiatlux, there's a huge difference between a practicing Gnostic
knowing full well the fruition of his beliefs, and some unstable
kid thinking he's caught in a matrix and needs to off himself to
get out - influenced by a movie.

Originally posted by Choi
Poppers was able to wake him self up with out a red pill. At the end Trinity said it herself that she didn't think it was possible. I don't remember the exact term. I'd look it up, but I'm at work right now.

I believe it was "self-substantiation".

i agree with NeoRunner & Niobe 16, he didnt do it to act cool, just to try and get rid of a buggin' kid, i 'spose

It's because Popper jumped and yes Neo saved him...but if Popper didn't jump then he couldn't possibly be saved. So practically, he saved himself.

"fiatlux, there's a huge difference between a practicing Gnostic
knowing full well the fruition of his beliefs, and some unstable
kid thinking he's caught in a matrix and needs to off himself to
get out - influenced by a movie."


Eta, there may be a huge philosophical difference between a practicing Gnostic and a confused kid contemplating suicide, but there isn't a huge FUNCTIONAL difference.

Both of them stop breathing by their own hand.

And, as history demonstrates repeatedly, practicing Gnostics who know full-well the fruition of their beliefs always end up putting cyanide in their own applesauce, with a little sugar to mask the bitter aftertaste. It cannot be otherwise.

If this world is REALLY a prison, then there can be only one way to release the spark of trapped divinity which is me. The guy kills himself in the game because it is a logical consequence of insisting that the world is illusory.

Hinduism and Buddhism both say the world is illusory, and both seek to destroy the Ego, the Self, both seek to enter No-Self. Gnosticism sees the world in essentially the same way, although there is some difference in emphasis on specific details of the illusion and how it plays out. Snuffing out the Ego, the Me-ness in this world - that's the key here.

This whole group is called "There is no spoon". It has already been pointed out that the spoons represent the various avatars, with Neo being the last and greatest. It has already been pointed out that the spoon IS, in some sense, Neo. And what does spoon-boy say? He says, "There is no spoon." There is no Neo, not really. That's why Neo can stop the squiddies. He is the man that the Tao te Ching talks of, the man of no-self.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one or more of the characters commit suicide in Revolutions.

neo called him up but The Kid really did get himself out. when neo tried to escape he was caught, and on top of that he had to take a pill to increase the signal. The Kid was so sure his reality (the matrix) wasnt real that when he fell he knew death wasnt coming but his awakening outside the matrix. because of this he did wake up and neo really didnt do much.

just wanna add, i remember the whole time watchin kids story i thought neo would swoop in and save him right before he hit the ground but never happened, too bad:D

Originally posted by fiatlux
"fiatlux, there's a huge difference between a practicing Gnostic
knowing full well the fruition of his beliefs, and some unstable
kid thinking he's caught in a matrix and needs to off himself to
get out - influenced by a movie."


Eta, there may be a huge philosophical difference between a practicing Gnostic and a confused kid contemplating suicide, but there isn't a huge FUNCTIONAL difference.

Both of them stop breathing by their own hand.

And, as history demonstrates repeatedly, practicing Gnostics who know full-well the fruition of their beliefs always end up putting cyanide in their own applesauce, with a little sugar to mask the bitter aftertaste. It cannot be otherwise.

If this world is REALLY a prison, then there can be only one way to release the spark of trapped divinity which is me. The guy kills himself in the game because it is a logical consequence of insisting that the world is illusory.

Hinduism and Buddhism both say the world is illusory, and both seek to destroy the Ego, the Self, both seek to enter No-Self. Gnosticism sees the world in essentially the same way, although there is some difference in emphasis on specific details of the illusion and how it plays out. Snuffing out the Ego, the Me-ness in this world - that's the key here.

This whole group is called "There is no spoon". It has already been pointed out that the spoons represent the various avatars, with Neo being the last and greatest. It has already been pointed out that the spoon IS, in some sense, Neo. And what does spoon-boy say? He says, "There is no spoon." There is no Neo, not really. That's why Neo can stop the squiddies. He is the man that the Tao te Ching talks of, the man of no-self.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one or more of the characters commit suicide in Revolutions.
You missed my point entirely. It goes beyond poor taste to
portray suicide as a form of enlightenment especially as
entertainment for kids.

just for the rec........ the kid did in fact save himself...(grant it w/ a lil help and encouragement of neo).. he had dreams and i believe he saw neo and he jumped b/c believing neo would save him in his dream.... when he was not dreaming he found himself in the same situation.... u c he believed in being saved so much that he freed himself when he died... he did not think he was going to be saved he KNEW he was going to be saved and that is y he woke up in the real world and his body died in the matrix.....

i do think the suicide thingis a little far b/c people might try to copy it, but think of it this way. alot of ppl seethe matrix movies but only intellegent, or at least somwhat intellegent ppl like nd understand the movie and are fans of it (no 7 or 8 year old fans). plus, not casual movie gers go out and but the animatrix, oly true matrix fans. i doubt anyone into the matrix enough to buy the animatrix is tupid oryound enough to actually beieve jumpingfrom a building will wake them up from the matrix. anyway, dont blame it on the W brothers, they didnt wrte it, others dd

actually the brothers wrote/directed all of those stories so they are responsible

Originally posted by bac1087
i doubt anyone into the matrix enough to buy the animatrix is tupid oryound enough to actually beieve jumpingfrom a building will wake them up from the matrix

If you could see some of the PMs X or I have gotten, I can guarantee you that scene's like that suicide in Kid's story provoked suicides out there. There are people that believe these movies are templates for survival or messages from the outside.

Scary stuff!
-WC-

Originally posted by NEO_01
actually the brothers wrote/directed all of those stories so they are responsible

are u sure aout that? i have no proof but i remember hearing that they only wrote the renasiance ones and just gave brief outlines for what to do for the other ones. i think i remember reading it in a times about the matrix. wait im positive now. a week before m2 came out there was a Time matrix cover and a big story on the movie cuz they saw it first. i didnt read most of the article cuz they warned of spoilers, but i did read about the animatrix and they said creative freedom was given to most besides the enasiance ones which they wrote. if ur right neo_01 i just wanna know where u got ur info from?

i thought kid's story was really good. he knew something and found neo himself. he believed he was in a world so blindly. neo didn't tell him to give up his life. neo just said like morpheus said to him "you have to let it all go neo... fear... doubt.... free your mind"
the kid was rung up by neo and told to run. obviously neo had his eye on him after their meeting on the chat room.
then you can obviously see the kid starting to break through the matrix on the skateboard (which was well cool) and then he knew there was nowhere else to turn. he decided on his own to end his own life because he knew it'd be better to die than to live in a fake world. but he freed himself.
self-substantiation i think it was.
i don't think it sets a bad example at all. it just shows an even deeper side

Originally posted by NEO_01
actually the brothers wrote/directed all of those stories so they are responsible

Final Flight of the Orisis - written by Andy & Larry Wachowski

The 2nd Renaissance I & II - written by Andy & Larry Wachowski

Kid's Story - written by Andy & Larry Wachowski

Program - written by Yoshiaka Kawajiri

World Record - written by Yoshiaka Kawajiri

Beyond - written by Koji Morimoto

A Detective Story - written by Shinichirô Watanabe

Matriculated- written by Peter Chung

Etaphase- I was just about to post that. you beat me to it.:p

i'm very dissapointed with second renaissance 1 and 2. I think they were totally stupid. I hope that WBs only put their name on it, didn't really write that crap.

And kids story is a bit disturbing, and shouldn't have been written.

Yeah, only one I like is final flight of the osirus.

And don't believe what fiatlux writes.

in a kids story, when he jumped, it never showed him land. so you cant really say for sure that he believed so much that he just woke up when he fell. whos to say that someone wasnt there to catch him, say, neo. "you saved me". but neo says that he saved himself because ,he was the one who "looked" for the truth, neo just got him out.

Originally posted by Terikan
i'm very dissapointed with second renaissance 1 and 2. I think they were totally stupid. I hope that WBs only put their name on it, didn't really write that crap.

And kids story is a bit disturbing, and shouldn't have been written.

Yeah, only one I like is final flight of the osirus.

And don't believe what fiatlux writes.

Dude, either you can refute what I write or you can't, but blanket rejections without any other reason than you don't happen to like the presentation makes you look kind of silly.

You should at least give people a reason WHY they shouldn't believe what I write. So, why would that be? If you can find a flaw in the presentation, point it out. That's what it means to have a discussion.

I like discussions.

Originally posted by TheTruth16
in a kids story, when he jumped, it never showed him land. so you cant really say for sure that he believed so much that he just woke up when he fell. whos to say that someone wasnt there to catch him, say, neo. "you saved me". but neo says that he saved himself because ,he was the one who "looked" for the truth, neo just got him out.


I like TheTruth16's take on this. It makes alot of sense.

You guys are all so judgemental!

I'm not saying whether it's right or not to make a film like Kid's Story, and I'm sure people will be influenced by it, but who are you to say they're wrong?
Some of you will know that I belive in this stuff, and I'm not mentally unbalanced and I'm not crazy. I'm also not a child, and I can make my own decisions. Just because you guys don't agree doesn't make people like me wrong.
And while it's not a good idea to glorify suicide, I don't think too many kids will actually have seen this story and want to copy it. For one, they wouldn't even understand it.
So, while I'm not in the mindset to actually kill myself, why shouldn't I if it's for a cause I believe? I would hardly be the first person to die for their beliefs.
Just to reiterate- I am not deranged (and just incase anybidy was actually worried for a minute- I wouldn't kill myself).
But just because you don't agree, why am I wrong to believe?

Originally posted by Truth
You guys are all so judgemental!

I'm not saying whether it's right or not to make a film like Kid's Story, and I'm sure people will be influenced by it, but who are you to say they're wrong?
Some of you will know that I belive in this stuff, and I'm not mentally unbalanced and I'm not crazy. I'm also not a child, and I can make my own decisions. Just because you guys don't agree doesn't make people like me wrong.
And while it's not a good idea to glorify suicide, I don't think too many kids will actually have seen this story and want to copy it. For one, they wouldn't even understand it.
So, while I'm not in the mindset to actually kill myself, why shouldn't I if it's for a cause I believe? I would hardly be the first person to die for their beliefs.
Just to reiterate- I am not deranged (and just incase anybidy was actually worried for a minute- I wouldn't kill myself).
But just because you don't agree, why am I wrong to believe?
I read your post 3 times now and still don't know what you believe.

Regardless - I'll say it again: the Wachowskis crossed the line by
portraying the outcome of suicide as positive. No good can come
out of this in my opinion. Nobody has returned from the dead to
declare to the world that suicide is harmless. Nobody.

Originally posted by Truth
You guys are all so judgemental!

I'm not saying whether it's right or not to make a film like Kid's Story, and I'm sure people will be influenced by it, but who are you to say they're wrong?
Some of you will know that I belive in this stuff, and I'm not mentally unbalanced and I'm not crazy. I'm also not a child, and I can make my own decisions. Just because you guys don't agree doesn't make people like me wrong.
And while it's not a good idea to glorify suicide, I don't think too many kids will actually have seen this story and want to copy it. For one, they wouldn't even understand it.
So, while I'm not in the mindset to actually kill myself, why shouldn't I if it's for a cause I believe? I would hardly be the first person to die for their beliefs.
Just to reiterate- I am not deranged (and just incase anybidy was actually worried for a minute- I wouldn't kill myself).
But just because you don't agree, why am I wrong to believe?

Truth, from what you've written, I gather that:
a) you believe the Matrix and Reloaded accurately describe what is going on in our own world - perhaps not exactly the same, but you at least accept that what we call reality is really an illusion that we need to transcend,
b) while you do not intend to commit suicide, you feel you should have the right to make that choice if you were to consider it,
c) you want to know where anybody gets off telling you that either proposition (a) is wrong or proposition (b) is wrong.

OK. If I've summarized what you meant correctly, this is how I would respond.

The decision to suicide in order to escape the illusion which is the world would be a rational decision ONLY if this world is really an illusion. I think we can both agree that our decisions must be based on reality. Any decision which is not based on the reality of a situation will ultimately harm us. WE have a duty towards each other to keep each other from harm.

So, our ability to say that suicide is wrong is based on the assessment that the reason for the suicide is not based in reality. That is, everything we are saying is based on the assessment that this world is NOT an illusion - it is real, and what the movie portrays is the real illusion.

We start with the assumption that the movie is portraying a false reality. You start with the assumption that the movie is, in some sense, accurately portraying reality. That is why we diverge on whether or not suicide can be acceptable.

It cannot be the case that one thing is true for you while the other is true for us. One of us has to be wrong here. Either the world is an illusion or it is not. Do you agree with this so far?

Etaphase- that's exactly it- you've missed my point entirely!
For all of you who don't know, I really, really believe in the whole idea of the Matrix as proposed in this trilogy (don't ask me to explain it- I've already explained myself a million times). For me, it just seems to answer a lot of questions. But enough about that- that wasn't the point.........
If suicide could actually release you- actually set you free....why is that a bad thing?
Again, just because you don't believe it yourself, that doesn't make it wrong.

fiatlux- that's not fair posting a question while I'm posting an answer! LOL.
And yes, I agree with you so far. The world is either an illusion or it is not.

Originally posted by Truth
fiatlux- that's not fair posting a question while I'm posting an answer! LOL.
And yes, I agree with you so far. The world is either an illusion or it is not.

:) OK. Now, we have an inherent problem in our proposition. We have to have some way of testing which of us is right. Do you have any ideas on how we can test to see if the world is an illusion or not?

Notice that what we have here is a variation on Descartes problem: all we have are our senses to rely on. By definition, we cannot trust our senses, since the world may be an illusion.

Now, if the world IS an illusion, that would imply a creator of the illusion. The very concept of illusion includes the idea that someone is trying to perpetrate the illusion. When we see a mirage in the desert, the one who is trying to perpetrate the illusion is us - we want water because we are thirsty. When we see a David Cooperfield trick, it is someone else. But in all cases, an illusion requires a perpetrator and a subject.

So, a related question is, if we assume the world is an illusion, did we create the illusion ourselves, or is someone else pulling a fast one on us? Which do you think?

If you pick yourself, then you are a solipsist - you think the entire universe is just a game you play with yourself to occupy your eternity. You are God.

If you say someone else is perpetrating it, then we have to establish Who that someone else is and what His motives are.

Well, I'm not God, not my own, and certainly no-one else's, so I suppose that leaves us with one option.
The perpertrator is someone else.

In the matrix movies, it is machines who are the creators, and there reason for needing our energy is clear. This is the part of the story I am unsure about. I don't really know if I follow the Matrix theory faithfully, as I find it impossible to decide if we are slaves to machines, or somehting else.
But does it really matter?

Originally posted by Truth
Well, I'm not God, not my own, and certainly no-one else's, so I suppose that leaves us with one option.
The perpertrator is someone else.

In the matrix movies, it is machines who are the creators, and there reason for needing our energy is clear. This is the part of the story I am unsure about. I don't really know if I follow the Matrix theory faithfully, as I find it impossible to decide if we are slaves to machines, or somehting else.
But does it really matter?

It matters enormously. In fact, it is the central question.

If we are being used as slave objects by the perpetrator of the illusion, then what we know as reality is malevolent - it is ultimately evil, because we are persons and we deserve to be treated better than an old table or a worn-out pair of shoes. Whatever is being hidden from us is being hidden in order to keep us helplessly shrouded in evil, pain, misery, slavery and away from the truth that would set us free.

If we are treated with the dignity due to us as persons, then our dignity and our concrete value as persons means we have the right to be loved fully and completely. Whatever is hidden from us by someone who loves us is being hidden for our good, because we are not yet capable of handling what is still hidden, and the one who created the illusion wants to shield us from harm or give us a greater sense of personal worth until we are ready for that revelation, that revealing.

If we are treated with anything less than this total, loving concern for our individual well-beings, than we are being used.
It's the difference between a child molester and a father.

The child molester will tell the victim that he better not tell because no one would believe him anyway and the molester will hurt him or his family if he even attempts it. The victim is given the illusion that he is helpless and anything but acquiescence will bring harm to himself and others.

Conversely, a father will tell a son stories that may not be technically accurate (the existence of Santa Claus, for instance, or the story that his dead puppy has gone to heaven), but which are given to the son until he is old enough to understand and handle a larger reality.

So, you believe we live in an illusion.
Is the creator of the illusion evil or good?
Is he a molester or a father?

This is one of the essential differences between Gnosticism and Judaism (or Christianity). Gnosticism says the creator is evil. Judaism and Christianity says the creator is good.

Which do you say?

Hey, hope you guys don't mind if I join in. And hi again, Fiatlux.
As a Jew, I don't believe the world is an illusion, but I also don't think of it as the real thing. I think of it as a mission. One we must undertake in order to reach the next, better, purely spiritual world - heaven.
So I guess to me the Matrix is more of a video game than a computer program. In this video game, you go up levels by doing more and more justice. This game does not finish after you pass a certain number of levels - like in gnostisicsm - but after an unknown off-screen time limit.
As for the question whether God is good or bad, I have a theory which I would love to get some feedback on.
The world as we know it, where events take place chronologically, had to start at some point, and since nothing can start from nothing, it had to be created by a completely independent entity. We call it God.
The only other completely independent entity that I know of is mathematics (apart from its immediate objects, nothing has an effect on the outcome of a mathematical equasion). This complete independence leads to mathematics being a tool for calculating justice (e.g. ten divided by two equals five, not three each and four left over for someone who's blackmailing you).
From this I conclude that any completely independent entity does only justice.
What do you think?

Originally posted by DNT5
"I didn't save you kid, you saved yourself."

Ok, is it just me? Or in the Animatrix movie "Kid's Story" doesn't Neo save the kid? He's the one who called him and told him to get out. I think Neo just says stuff like that to act cool.

i think he saved himself, i knoneo rang him up n all, but the kid was the 1 who pulled himself out o the matrix, so he did save himself

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Hey, hope you guys don't mind if I join in. And hi again, Fiatlux.
As a Jew, I don't believe the world is an illusion, but I also don't think of it as the real thing. I think of it as a mission. One we must undertake in order to reach the next, better, purely spiritual world - heaven.
So I guess to me the Matrix is more of a video game than a computer program. In this video game, you go up levels by doing more and more justice. This game does not finish after you pass a certain number of levels - like in gnostisicsm - but after an unknown off-screen time limit.
As for the question whether God is good or bad, I have a theory which I would love to get some feedback on.
The world as we know it, where events take place chronologically, had to start at some point, and since nothing can start from nothing, it had to be created by a completely independent entity. We call it God.
The only other completely independent entity that I know of is mathematics (apart from its immediate objects, nothing has an effect on the outcome of a mathematical equasion). This complete independence leads to mathematics being a tool for calculating justice (e.g. ten divided by two equals five, not three each and four left over for someone who's blackmailing you).
From this I conclude that any completely independent entity does only justice.
What do you think?

freeyourmind, I agree that the world isn't an illusion, but some people think it is, so we're walking through the logical consequences of the view.

The only critique I would have of your theory is that God has to be fruitful, while mathematics is only descriptive. That is, math is a language which describes reality with extraordinary accuracy, but God is the person who created the reality being described. Thus, it might be closer to say that math is one of God's primary languages.

You are right in seeing a connection between complete independence and justice. But we need to see an even more important connection, and this has direct bearing on "the world is an illusion" discussion. That is the connection between mercy and justice. You as a Jew, and I as a Catholic, both realize that God's mercy triumphs over his justice. Despite the evil things human persons do to one another, the good things of the world are not automatically cut off from any of us - evil men as well as good men can enjoy good food, common pleasures, the sunshine, etc.

Mathematics does not seem to have a conceptual framework for mercy, although it does for justice, for truth and for beauty. Thus, while math may be one of God's primary languages, there is another language which is even more powerful than math, and that is the language of mercy.

define real.

i was dissapointed with renasiance 1 and 2 as well b/c they had obvious plot holes (why dont the atomic bombs destroy the machines if an atomic bomb also sends an EMP out which we KNOW kills the machines). i thought kids story was ok too but maybe they shouldnt of shown the funeral to make sure we know he died. i disagree though on Flight of the Osiris. i think that was one of the worst ones. i mean it looked pretty and stuff but too much time was wasted on that guy and girl fighting and too little on the actual plot. it wasnt exacting either (wow she rushed to the mailbox, good job ;)). im just sayin was a ittle stupid and purely just eye candy

Originally posted by Terikan
define real.

That which has objective existence, either independently or contingently.

Hello to both of you.
Sorry to go back to this subject, but Fiatlux, you said that the 'central question' was the identity of the creator of the illusion.
(But why? This discussion, in it's most simplistic terms, is about the existence or not of the reality we know. We do not need to fully understand something to belive in it. You say you are a Catholic, and yet to believe in God requires tremendous faith. You do not need to analyze Catholicism to explain your faith. And so it is with me. I can't answer any of your questions with 100% accuracy, because my belief is based on faith, and most of the answers I don't know.
But to be honest, faith was my original point when I joined this thread. You believe something, and so do I. You can't fully explain your faith, and neither can I.) And now back to the point....

You asked if I thought the creative entity was evil or good. A long time ago, when I first developed this idea to myself (and yes, it was before the movies, around 1996), I firmily believed the creator was good, and as you suggested, was protecting us from something until we were ready to see it for ourselves. Well....that's not quite right. I felt it was almost as if we were in training (don't laugh), sort of preparing for the Real World. (I won't go into detail, because I've spent far too much time going over it myself, and I think you would all just find it very boring.)

However, as time progressed, i found myself wondering if the creator was good, or if we were in actual fact, slaves to a system. When the Matrix movie was released, it seemed to me a good explanation of the thoughts I was having. (I'm not saying i actually believe in the whole machine idea from the movies, but it does satisfy the way my mind was progressing at the time.)
If we are indeed, slaves, whether we are kept as energy generators something else, I don't know, and at least for my own beliefs, it doesn't matter. What matters is that this is not real. And I believe that.

So finally.......I have no idea if the creator is good or evil.

Mathematics does not seem to have a conceptual framework for mercy, although it does for justice, for truth and for beauty. Thus, while math may be one of God's primary languages, there is another language which is even more powerful than math, and that is the language of mercy.

I didn't say mathematics was a language of god. I was just pointing out that any completely independent system was incapable of doing injustice.
As for mercy being more important than justice - this is one of the main disagreements between the Jewish and the Christian worldview.
Judaism holds that only people who sinned by accident or because they couldn't resist their temptations can be forgiven. But sane people who deliberately hurt other people for their own personal benifit cannot be forgiven (this group of people isn't as big as it may sound, though. It would include Nazi, or indeed any, war criminals, serial killers or rapists, gangsters, and so on).
What I'm trying to say is that mercy is part of the equasion god uses to find justice.

mmm, if you read the book of thomas, one of the numerous gospel that have been considered as heresy by the vatican, there is no mercy at all from your 'god', only for the enlightened.church is based on an ideology on which they have removed the 'disturbing contents' , in order to make it acceptable to most.

I just want to spill a thought after reading the very interesting discussion between the 3 of you (fiatlux, Truth, Freeyourmind)

I'm not attached to any religion anymore, because I could find myself in the various religions I've seen. I believe in God in my own way.

I (as I suppose a lot of people do) asked myself: why all this misery and pain. I think God sees us, sees our pain and also our joys. The thing is, we've choosen for the world with the pain and pleasure which accompanies this choice. God does not interfere on a 'worldly' level, because when He would it would mean that this world is real to Him. I think for Him only Heaven is real, and we (in choosing the 'apple') choose for this world. It does not mean either is real or false, it means for us this is real untill we choose Heaven again.

Man, it's difficult to write about such thougts, I hope it makes a little sense. Feel free to ask for specifics or anything else you'd like.

Jess

im scared, when i think, that when i die, i cant breath, and i cant live.
what happends to me?
when i think it, i start to panic.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I didn't say mathematics was a language of god. I was just pointing out that any completely independent system was incapable of doing injustice.
As for mercy being more important than justice - this is one of the main disagreements between the Jewish and the Christian worldview.
Judaism holds that only people who sinned by accident or because they couldn't resist their temptations can be forgiven. But sane people who deliberately hurt other people for their own personal benifit cannot be forgiven (this group of people isn't as big as it may sound, though. It would include Nazi, or indeed any, war criminals, serial killers or rapists, gangsters, and so on).
What I'm trying to say is that mercy is part of the equasion god uses to find justice.

i am Jewish and although your mostly right, your knowledge of Judaism isnt entirely correct. any sin you do you can be forgiven for, as long as you repent and mean it. even if you do something deliberatley wrong, as long as you repent and truly say to yourself I will not do that again and if the situation arises again you do not sin like before, then you are forgiven. the only things that cannot be forgiven are if you violate any of the 10 commandments which are sorta laws that every human should abide by. its a lot tougher than repenting as a Christian but it really makes sure you dont do it again because you cant just get forgiven by a preist and go on with life.

Originally posted by Irkjuzuga
im scared, when i think, that when i die, i cant breath, and i cant live.
what happends to me?
when i think it, i start to panic.

im confused what u mean by that. do u mean if theres no heaven youll just drift in nothingness and your scared what life is like in that form. ive thought like that before but found a solution. i believe in Judaism and therefore in the world to come, but if it turns out im wrong and we just drift into nothingness, well then i dont believe u can think or know that u exist anymore b/c u dont. we cant imagine it b/c it would be even less awake than when we are sleeping. hopefully u cant feel regret however in that state and therefore i live this life with hope of a next life, and if it turns out im wrong i cant regret being religous.

i am Jewish and although your mostly right, your knowledge of Judaism isnt entirely correct. any sin you do you can be forgiven for, as long as you repent and mean it. even if you do something deliberatley wrong, as long as you repent and truly say to yourself I will not do that again and if the situation arises again you do not sin like before, then you are forgiven. the only things that cannot be forgiven are if you violate any of the 10 commandments which are sorta laws that every human should abide by. its a lot tougher than repenting as a Christian but it really makes sure you dont do it again because you cant just get forgiven by a preist and go on with life.

I'm not sure we're both talking about the same Judaism. I'm talking about the zionist-orthodox sect's view (I think outside of Israel, this sect is called Mizrachi or Orthodox or Modern Orthodox. Anyway, we're the strict observers that don't wear black clothes).
According to our belief, if a person sins by accident, negligence, or surrendering to temptation, he can repent by praying, especially on Yom Kippur (the day of atonement). If, however, a person who commits a deliberate sin - like rape, or blakmail (both of which don't appear in the ten commandments - cannot be forgiven, no matter what he does.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I'm not sure we're both talking about the same Judaism. I'm talking about the zionist-orthodox sect's view (I think outside of Israel, this sect is called Mizrachi or Orthodox or Modern Orthodox. Anyway, we're the strict observers that don't wear black clothes).
According to our belief, if a person sins by accident, negligence, or surrendering to temptation, he can repent by praying, especially on Yom Kippur (the day of atonement). If, however, a person who commits a deliberate sin - like rape, or blakmail (both of which don't appear in the ten commandments - cannot be forgiven, no matter what he does.

i am modern orthodox freeyourmind, just i wanted to explain it in sucha way that a non-Jew might be able to understand it. im sure most non-Jews do not know exactly what occurs on yom Kippur so i didnt mention anything like that. also, i learnt that when the ten commandment says "though shall not steal" it is talking about kidnapping and forcing slavery on the person and when it talks about "though shall not commit adultery' it is talking about cheating on your wife with another woman that you force to have relations with you even if she does not want to (ie rape). this knowledge is based on the fact that the Torah does not say anything for no reason or repeat anything and both standard adultery and the punishment for stealing are discussed seperately in the torah. therefore the ten commandments are talking about really inhumane things to do when they say though shall not steal and though shall not commit adultery and those things cannot be forgiven. as for blackmail, im not sure if u cant be forgiven for that, even though it is a terrible thing to do to another.

**just to tell u, on the ten commandments thing thats not a definite fact, its just the opinion or accepted opinion of my rabbi and the yeshiva he came from and therefore i accept it as well

You know, come to think of it, I seem to recall the commandments "Dont steal" refers to kidnapping and taking ransom for the one you kidnapped. At least according to Rashi.
Also, there's an accepted opinion that all commandments can be tied to the ten commandments on the tablets (I think Iben Ezra suggested this), so maybe that's what your rabbi and his Yeshive meant.
Where are you from, by the way?

new york long island

That which has objective existence, either independently or contingently.

What's a 'that'? How do you know when one 'that' ends and another begins? What do you mean by objective? What do you mean by existence?

Before you spew any further, consider the following.

Thoughts exist, as much as the computer in front of me.

Read up on substance theory, this, that, etc. Even if there were a physical world, because of the fact we draw boundaries in our mind makes reality subjective.

If our own observations are subjective (which, by definition, they are) then objectivity is not within our grasp.

Not saying your definition is bad, but it makes determining the real impossible.

Terikan- thankyou! I don't know if you are actually in any way backing me up, or just making a point, but I think you've put it a lot better than me.
Reality is inherently subjective.

And fiatlux, freeyourmind, whoever- come back here and discuss this with me!

Of course reality is subjective. That's why we can't pursue justice without the intervention of god.
As I pointed out before, god must be objective, and his only interest is justice.
There is only one definition of real:
That which god believes to be the truth.

In which case, we can never really know what is real.

not unless we have a revealation from god.

Originally posted by Terikan
What's a 'that'? How do you know when one 'that' ends and another begins? What do you mean by objective? What do you mean by existence?

Before you spew any further, consider the following.

Thoughts exist, as much as the computer in front of me.

Read up on substance theory, this, that, etc. Even if there were a physical world, because of the fact we draw boundaries in our mind makes reality subjective.

If our own observations are subjective (which, by definition, they are) then objectivity is not within our grasp.

Not saying your definition is bad, but it makes determining the real impossible.

To begin with, we must recognize what I've already pointed out in regards to mathematics. Language is inherently limited and does not necessarily fully describe reality. Take particle physics as a practical example. Quarks have always existed, but we had to invent a name for them and for the characteristics (color, up, down, etc.). By inventing terms, we necessarily base the definitions of the terms on the observed behaviour of the things they are supposed to be describing. Thus, the definition of quark will change as our understanding of the objective reality which is the quark grows and matures.

In philosophy, the same thing happens all the time. Take the term "person". The original Greek, "persona", referred to the mask an actor wore during his performance on stage. Philosophy and theology took the term over to describe an attribute of God, and the definition became more exact as the logical consequences of observations had to be applied and reconciled. This term is now being redefined as society attempts to rid itself of vestiges of God, but retains an essentially theo-centric vocabulary to describe those made in His image and likeness.

To say that objectivity is not within our grasp is not to say it does not exist. I may not know how to fly a helicopter, but helicopters exist. I may not grasp the functioning of my liver, but it exists and it functions. Earlier generations had no understanding of germ theory, but germs existed and killed them or assisted them in living, regardless of whether or not we perceived their existence.

To say that reality is subjective is to say that what is true for me is not necessarily true for you. This is balderdash. Is it the case that germs exist for us but did not exist for ancient Romans, or do not now exist for the !Kung tribesman of Africa who have never heard of germ theory?

The very idea that reality is an illusion assumes that there is an objective reality to be spoofed.

Originally posted by Truth
Hello to both of you.
Sorry to go back to this subject, but Fiatlux, you said that the 'central question' was the identity of the creator of the illusion.
(But why? This discussion, in it's most simplistic terms, is about the existence or not of the reality we know. We do not need to fully understand something to belive in it. You say you are a Catholic, and yet to believe in God requires tremendous faith. You do not need to analyze Catholicism to explain your faith. And so it is with me. I can't answer any of your questions with 100% accuracy, because my belief is based on faith, and most of the answers I don't know.
But to be honest, faith was my original point when I joined this thread. You believe something, and so do I. You can't fully explain your faith, and neither can I.) And now back to the point....

You asked if I thought the creative entity was evil or good. A long time ago, when I first developed this idea to myself (and yes, it was before the movies, around 1996), I firmily believed the creator was good, and as you suggested, was protecting us from something until we were ready to see it for ourselves. Well....that's not quite right. I felt it was almost as if we were in training (don't laugh), sort of preparing for the Real World. (I won't go into detail, because I've spent far too much time going over it myself, and I think you would all just find it very boring.)

However, as time progressed, i found myself wondering if the creator was good, or if we were in actual fact, slaves to a system. When the Matrix movie was released, it seemed to me a good explanation of the thoughts I was having. (I'm not saying i actually believe in the whole machine idea from the movies, but it does satisfy the way my mind was progressing at the time.)
If we are indeed, slaves, whether we are kept as energy generators something else, I don't know, and at least for my own beliefs, it doesn't matter. What matters is that this is not real. And I believe that.

So finally.......I have no idea if the creator is good or evil.

Sorry to take so long to respond - my son was born on Friday and my Internet connection died Saturday night. Just got reset this morning. To answer your first question, the nature of the one(s) who created the illusion is critical because it influences the kind of illusion that will be created. Everything anyone creates in some way reflects who they are. So it must be with the reality we deal with. Whether what we deal with is an illusion spoofing objective reality or objective reality itself is, in that sense, irrelevant.

Although you don't mention it, the primary problem most people face with this question is the problem of pain. Why is there evil in this world? One of the most remorseless logicians I know, C.S. Lewis, answered this question in the book of the same name, "The Problem of Pain."

Ultimately this is the problem Christianity, Gnosticism, Hinduism and Buddhism all attempt to answer. As Lewis points out, pain is neutral, it is neither good nor bad. There are several motivations one can have for inflicting pain. For instance, if you jog or exercise regularly, you can have a certain amount of muscle pain from that activity, and this pain can, in a certain sense, even be pleasant. You can have people who deliberately torture others. You can have others who inflict pain in order to bring about a greater good - the cancer surgeon who has to cut out the cancer, or the obstetrician who performed the C-section on my wife this past Friday. In both cases, the amount of pain inflicted is terrific, but it is inflicted for a good - the removal of deadly cancer, the bringing of our child safely into the larger world.

My wife is, at the moment, in a great deal of pain, but she is very joyful over this pain because it has brought our son to us safely. If, however, the person had sliced open her belly in order to kill our child, and she had survived it, she would be very sad right now. The same pain inflicted, but the difference in motivations makes all the difference in the world.

Thus, whether or not this world is an illusion, whether or not we are dealing with objective reality - these questions are not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the motivation. If someone created the world and/or the illusion (and by the very fact that you believe in the illusion, you necessarily believe in a creator of the illusion), we need to know the creator's motivation.
Once we know that, we can judge whether we are children or slaves.

This is not fair- I'm at work, and I don't have enough time to concentrate on my answers! But bear with me, I'm still here- I'll have an answer in a minute!

Congrats on the baby. Let us know when it has a name, alright? ;)

Our soul is the little bit of god each one of us has in him, and this soul can be used, among other things, to create art. So in a sense, the creation of the world is god's work of art.
I think the human art most similar to god's one is probably literature
Would a story be any good, or artistic, if there was no one single conflict in it? I don't thinl so. There would be no point in writing a story like that. A worthy story has a conflict, and if we're lucky, a solution (sometimes the author would leave the solution up to us).
Anyway, my point is, there would be no point in creating a perfect world. It makes much more sense to create a mission, let the readers form a solution, and go to artistic satisfaction's paradise.

And Mazal Tov on the baby, again.

Congratulations!

How can we judge a transcendental creators' motivation? As you have pointed out, our reality contains both good and evil, so have can we decide what the purpose was?

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Congrats on the baby. Let us know when it has a name, alright? ;)

Our soul is the little bit of god each one of us has in him, and this soul can be used, among other things, to create art. So in a sense, the creation of the world is god's work of art.
I think the human art most similar to god's one is probably literature
Would a story be any good, or artistic, if there was no one single conflict in it? I don't thinl so. There would be no point in writing a story like that. A worthy story has a conflict, and if we're lucky, a solution (sometimes the author would leave the solution up to us).
Anyway, my point is, there would be no point in creating a perfect world. It makes much more sense to create a mission, let the readers form a solution, and go to artistic satisfaction's paradise.

And Mazal Tov on the baby, again.

The little boy is named David Joseph, 8 pounds, 8.25 oz, 20 inches long and likes breast-feeding, as do most men. :)

The "our soul is the little bit of God each one of us has in him" is an interesting statement. You might want to elaborate on this. Are you saying that there is one vast soul, and each of us has a part of it? If so, then all of humanity, taken together, is God.
That's a frightening thought...

If you mean something else, which you probably do, then you'll have to explain it to me more thoroughly.

If you accept the divine inspiration of Genesis (and you can do that without holding a creationist position, if you want), then it is clear that God made the world to grow, and man was meant to assist the world in that growth. So, in that sense, you're assertion that the world was not made perfect is correct. It was made without fault, but it was not necessarily complete at creation. There's a whole riff on this in Christian theology which is called "the theology of the body" - I've got an e-book summary on my website (www.bridegroompress.com).

Originally posted by Truth
Congratulations!

How can we judge a transcendental creators' motivation? As you have pointed out, our reality contains both good and evil, so have can we decide what the purpose was?

Thanks and a good question!

There have historically been three ways the ultimate reality is given to us:

1) the proofs of the natural world. No religious tradition argues this point. Although the various traditions may argue about WHAT the natural world proves, none argue that the natural world constitutes proof about the nature of ultimate reality. This is primarily where the problem of evil arrives, because the natural world inflicts both good and evil upon its inhabitants, and every religious tradition is essentially an attempt to provide a coherent explanation for why this is.

Note that virtually all religions share broad agreement on what constitutes good and what constitutes evil. It is generally agreed that stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, murder is wrong, etc. The Thugee cult of Kali or the Aztec practice of human sacrifice might be pointed to as exceptions here, but even in these instances, the human sacrifice was not seen as a good in itself, but an evil that had to be tolerated in order to prevent a greater evil - the destruction of the world, or a similarly cataclysmic event.

The very fact of this general agreement shows that someone has instilled in us concepts of good and evil. There is coherent, visible, proven structure to the universe. All of Western science is based on this concept: the idea of an objective reality that can be ascertained. Indeed, historians of science generally agree that this concept is exclusive to the Judeo/Christian world-view. No other philosophical system has a clear beginning and a deterministic endpoint. Since all the other systems are cyclic, the other philosophical systems prevented the rise of a coherent scientific world-view and the rise of science itself. Although it might make specific progress in a specific area (like Chinese gunpowder), it made no broad progress in several areas simultaneously. This proof of the natural world is called "natural revelation."

2) the proofs of the prophets. Again, virtually every system of belief has someone(s) who acted as a prophet. Aristotle for the Greeks, Buddha for Buddhism, Manes for Manicheans, the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures for Judaism, the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles of the Church for the Christians, etc. This proof is generally considered a form of divine revelation. The Greeks considered anyone highly intelligent to have a share in the divine mind. Buddha refused the idea that he was God, but insisted that the 8-fold path led to enlightenment.
The examples could be multiplied.

3) the creator speaks to us directly. This point is not present in all belief systems. Buddhism doesn't have it in the Western sense of the term because it is not monotheistic in the Western sense, but the very idea of entering into No-Mind or Nirvana gives an inchoate sense of this. In the Matrix, the Architect speaks to Neo. In Hebrew Scripture, God speaks directly to man on a number of occasions. For Christians, of course, God actually takes on human flesh in order to make the message perfectly clear to us.

These are the three ways we can know about the Creator:
natural revelation, and the two forms of divine revelation, prophets and direct communication from the Creator Himself.

Three questions.
1) How do we know these concepts of good and evil were not instilled in us by an evil entity with hidden interests?
2)How do we know the prophets aren't lying to us?
3)How do we know we can trust this god?

I think I have a satisfactory answer to question 3 (remember? Mathematics, Independent entity) but I'm having trouble with your first two proofs.
Say hi to David Joseph for me.

Congratulations!

How can we judge a transcendental creators' motivation? As you have pointed out, our reality contains both good and evil, so have can we decide what the purpose was?

Can anyone tell me what Tracnscendental means so I can try and answer this? Thanks.

Surpassing, sir

Sorry, but I still don't follow... :(

I like pizza

So do I. What the hell does transcendental mean???

For freeyourmind: another definition would be 'beyond common thought or experience', but you could just as easily substitute the word 'transcendental' for 'omnipotent' in this case.

Thanks.
Did you accept my proof for the existence of god? (Nothing can start from nothing. World must have been created by a completely independent entity)
If you did, then I think the logical conclusion is that god can only do justice. If you didn't, I'd be more than happy to start a discussion on the topic.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Three questions.
1) How do we know these concepts of good and evil were not instilled in us by an evil entity with hidden interests?
2)How do we know the prophets aren't lying to us?
3)How do we know we can trust this god?

I think I have a satisfactory answer to question 3 (remember? Mathematics, Independent entity) but I'm having trouble with your first two proofs.
Say hi to David Joseph for me.

I surely shall - mother and child come home today! :)
As for knowing whether or not we are being spoofed in all three areas, we can't know with absolute certainty, but we can know with moral certainty.

The difference between the two is illustrated this way:
Let's say you took a math test. Someone asks you how you did just as you leave the classroom. You reply, "I'm morally certain I did well. I had done the homework and did well on it, I studied for the test and felt confident, I looked at the test and all the questions matched what I had studied and did homework on, I am certain I did my calculations correctly, for I double-checked all of them, I am morally certain I got an A."

You would not, however, have absolute certainty until the teacher handed you the graded paper with the A on top. After all, you may have actually misunderstood the questions without realizing it, your checks might have been simply repeating the same mistakes, the tester could have been subtle and asked questions which didn't really match the subject area and you didn't realize it, etc.

We won't have absolute certainty until we meet God after death. We can have moral certainty until then.

For freeyourmind:
Yes, I absolutely accept your reasoning for the existence of God. And I completely agree, that this creative entity must be independent of the thing it creates.
I see your logic for the god and justice point, but then how do we explain the evil things that happen?
I know that a lot of these things are simply a reflection of the human species, but are we not a reflection of the creator? If we have the power to commit evil deeds, surely the creator must too?

And to answer fiatlux, I think that whether we view the creator as either a father or an abuser is also a reflection of how we see things. If, for instance, we see the good deeds, then surely we would see the creator as a father figure, a protector. But if we see the negative things we would percieve the creator as a cruel ruler. Basically,the creator is what we make of Him.

Since, as you pointed out, we cannot know Him without proof, of which we have none, we have to be content with an argument we can never answer.

..............I think I went off the point a bit

Originally posted by Truth
For freeyourmind:
Yes, I absolutely accept your reasoning for the existence of God. And I completely agree, that this creative entity must be independent of the thing it creates.
I see your logic for the god and justice point, but then how do we explain the evil things that happen?
I know that a lot of these things are simply a reflection of the human species, but are we not a reflection of the creator? If we have the power to commit evil deeds, surely the creator must too?

And to answer fiatlux, I think that whether we view the creator as either a father or an abuser is also a reflection of how we see things. If, for instance, we see the good deeds, then surely we would see the creator as a father figure, a protector. But if we see the negative things we would percieve the creator as a cruel ruler. Basically,the creator is what we make of Him.

Since, as you pointed out, we cannot know Him without proof, of which we have none, we have to be content with an argument we can never answer.

..............I think I went off the point a bit

It is not necessarily the case that our capacity for evil says anything about the creator's capacity for evil. Look at computers, for instance. Anyone who has tried to program a computer knows that they take things absolutely literally in a way that most people do not. For that reason, they are capable of making errors which most people would never make.

God (defined as an all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. Being) would be to us something as we are to computers. We make mistakes (act in an evil way) that He never would. There are a couple of differences, of course:
1) God would be all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., so He wouldn't make mistakes due to lack of knowledge, as we or computers do,
2) God intended us to have free will, choice - even the Matrix admits that choice is central to the human condition, although it has some fairly unfriendly things to say about that through the Merovingian. Computers don't have the ability to choose freely, while we do. As a result, we can see a good thing and still refuse it. In fact, we often do exactly this. Who hasn't seen a child refuse an ice cream cone because they are angry about some other issue? As adults, we do similar things all the time.

Thus, the entire existence of all evil in the world would be due to the fact that humans choose poorly - they sin. There's a little more to that story, of course. In order to assign responsibility for things like hurricanes and epidemics or similar cataclysmic acts of nature, we have to assume that mankind carries an importance in the created world that is absolutely unique - mankind would have to be something of a caretaker for the world, a steward, or something similar.

And I never said we didn't have proof of God. I said we had three forms of proof: the proof of creation/nature, the proof of prophets and the proof of God's direct self-revelation. I said these proofs could not give us absolute certainty through just natural reason alone, unaided by divine power, but these proofs *CAN* give us moral certainty about who God is and what He wants through just natural reason alone, unaided by divine power.

This is essentially what Neo is doing. He is using natural reason alone. First, he was given the proof of nature (the world is an illusion), then the proof of prophets (the Oracle), then the proof of divine revelation (the Architect). From these three successive proofs, he has drawn certain conclusions. These conclusions are logically coherent and fit the evidence he's been given.

Now, if we are to follow Neo's path, we will look at the natural world around us, we will read the prophetic writings, and we will look for God's direct revelation of Himself to us. Since this isn't a movie, what we discover will necessarily be different than what Neo discovers in the script of the Matrix. It may be similar - perhaps we are living in an illusion - but we are dealing with dramatically different evidence sets, it would be kind of surprising to find ourselves reaching his conclusions.

Originally posted by Truth

And to answer fiatlux, I think that whether we view the creator as either a father or an abuser is also a reflection of how we see things. If, for instance, we see the good deeds, then surely we would see the creator as a father figure, a protector. But if we see the negative things we would percieve the creator as a cruel ruler. Basically,the creator is what we make of Him.

Since, as you pointed out, we cannot know Him without proof, of which we have none, we have to be content with an argument we can never answer.

..............I think I went off the point a bit

I just realized that I went off the point a bit too :/

We can't just consider the parts of the evidence we like, good or bad. We have to consider ALL of it.

So, we have to answer why there is good AND why there is evil, and explain every bit of it down to the last iota, or we don't really have an explanation, we just have an illusion of an explanation.
If we do anything less, then you would be right - the creator is what we make of Him. But since He has his own objective real existence, we can't afford to do that - our subjective opinions might be wrong. We HAVE to get to the objective truth, the truth that explains everything.

It is possible to do this.

Every belief system is an attempt to do this. As with most things human, most of these attempts fail in some way. Here, in very simple terms, is a short summary of some of the various attempts to deal with the problem:

The Manicheans saw the good and the evil and said there must be two equally powerful gods, good and evil, who struggle against one another.

The Gnostics saw them both and said the evil must be less than the good, therefore it is less perfect. Since existence is more perfect than non-existence, they drew the logical conclusion that our reality is just an illusion created by an evil demi-God. We must transcend the illusion to reach the more powerful good God.

The Buddhists saw them both and said that reality is an illusion, but there is no good God to get to. They insist that it is our desire which causes the problem. Obliterate desire and evil will disappear.

The Jews saw the problem, but had a unique help. God revealed Himself to them uniquely. Even the most cursory examination of Hebrew Scripture, as compared to the holy writings of the Hindus (the Uphanishads), the Norse, the Egyptians, the Greeks, etc. shows a specific and peculiar character. The other kinds of Scripture all contain pleasant or unpleasant stories about the gods, but none demand the reader to make a choice about their veracity. The Hebrew Scriptures constantly demand that the reader assent to the fact that God is revealing Himself directly. They deal with historical proof in a way that no other holy writings do - even agnostics and atheists agree that this is a unique characteristic of these writings.

The Christians saw the problem through the prism of one who claims to solve it. The Christian writings demand the same kind of assent as the Hebrew writings, but with an even more historically verifiable set of assertions than the Hebrew Scriptures.

This is not to say that Christian writings are better than the Hebrew Scriptures - they are not. This is simply to say that the state of our archeological science, and our knowledge of ancient texts is able to verify or disprove first century AD events much more thoroughly than 6th century BC events. After all, it is easier for evidence to survive 20 centuries than it is to survive 26 centuries. Kind of a mundane reason, but it needs to be taken into account.

Fiatlux, you're right. You always make such convincing arguments.

We do have proof of God, but what we don't have, is proof of intention. For all the religious arguments you've shown us, there is still no answer- many of the religions simply don't agree- how can we make an informed decision with conflicting information?

Certainly in my case, I don't have any sort of proof at all- I just have the faith, and the belief. And while that makes my arguments conspicuously less convincing, it doesn't make them any less true. I know- that's not what you said, just making a point.

How do we apply your proof to this discussion?

I just like to make a point concerning the matrix. If, for example the reality we live in is simply a 'matrix', and our masters are indeed machines, we must look at their intentions for us.

Think of how we, as humans, treat our own 'energy sources'- animals. Animals are often kept in terrible conditions, with little or no freedom, no choice, and no power over their own lives, all the while, knowing they are in captivity.

On the other hand, the machines have gone out of their way to create a reality as pleasant for us as possible. The Architect said that he tried to create a perfect world for the humans, it was only ourselves, our 'primitive cerebrums' that caused this version, a less perfect universe to be created for our reality. Simply put- they wanted us to be happy.

Yes of course having us as energy generators also happened to suit them very nicely, but the point remains, they have been as kind as possible.

Does this not make the creator of the matrix a protector, a father figure?

(Although I very much like your point of a computer taking things literally, and making mistakes that logic wouldn't allow. That actually adds something to my ideas about who the creator of 'my reality' would be.)

Sorry, off the point again..................

when the architect says he made a perfect world for humans, its not because he wants them to be happy. he knows that if humans figure out theyre being held in captvity theyll try to escape and then theyll lose their food source. i dont think the architect is being good to us like a father figure but rather just doing what will keep him and the rest of the machines alive by creating a convincing world the humans will want to stay in and wont realize is fake

when the architect says he made a perfect world for humans, its not because he wants them to be happy. he knows that if humans figure out theyre being held in captvity theyll try to escape and then theyll lose their food source. i dont think the architect is being good to us like a father figure but rather just doing what will keep him and the rest of the machines alive by creating a convincing world the humans will want to stay in and wont realize is fake

I agree bac1087

I would say he's more of a dictator trying to rule a perfect society (matrix)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------fiatlux wrote:

This is essentially what Neo is doing. He is using natural reason alone. First, he was given the proof of nature (the world is an illusion), then the proof of prophets (the Oracle), then the proof of divine revelation (the Architect). From these three successive proofs, he has drawn certain conclusions. These conclusions are logically coherent and fit the evidence he's been given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Each of the agents you mention, Morpheus, Oracle and Architect, each has their own agendas. Neo has yet to discover his. It is interesting to me that one of the major decisions he made on his own was to reject the Architect/Deity construct.

G.A.O.T.U.

Originally posted by Truth
Fiatlux, you're right. You always make such convincing arguments.

Thanks. :)


We do have proof of God, but what we don't have, is proof of intention. For all the religious arguments you've shown us, there is still no answer- many of the religions simply don't agree- how can we make an informed decision with conflicting information?

Certainly in my case, I don't have any sort of proof at all- I just have the faith, and the belief. And while that makes my arguments conspicuously less convincing, it doesn't make them any less true. I know- that's not what you said, just making a point.

How do we apply your proof to this discussion?


Oh, I haven't offered any proof of anything yet. I'm just laying out the foundation. It is always important to make sure terms are defined before you start a discussion like this, and that is what I'm doing.

We've established that there is a creator, that there are three ways in which He reveals Himself, and that we have to figure out His intention by considering every scrap of available evidence and making a logically coherent worldview out of it.

That's quite a lot of progress, actually.


I just like to make a point concerning the matrix. If, for example the reality we live in is simply a 'matrix', and our masters are indeed machines, we must look at their intentions for us.

Think of how we, as humans, treat our own 'energy sources'- animals. Animals are often kept in terrible conditions, with little or no freedom, no choice, and no power over their own lives, all the while, knowing they are in captivity.

On the other hand, the machines have gone out of their way to create a reality as pleasant for us as possible. The Architect said that he tried to create a perfect world for the humans, it was only ourselves, our 'primitive cerebrums' that caused this version, a less perfect universe to be created for our reality. Simply put- they wanted us to be happy.

Yes of course having us as energy generators also happened to suit them very nicely, but the point remains, they have been as kind as possible.

Does this not make the creator of the matrix a protector, a father figure?

(Although I very much like your point of a computer taking things literally, and making mistakes that logic wouldn't allow. That actually adds something to my ideas about who the creator of 'my reality' would be.)

Sorry, off the point again..................

Yes, indeed, the Architect's point in the Matrix is precisely the point we can arrive at through study of the natural world that surrounds us. All in all, the world is a remarkably hospitable and pleasant place to live in. That would seem to point to a father figure.

Now, of course, we are saying this from a first world perspective where there is food at the local supermarkets in overwhelming abundance, I'm typing from an air-conditioned living space, I have hot and cold running water and flush toilets - probably 75% of the world's population does not have these conveniences. And certainly there are natural cataclysms that destroy the quality of life for significant numbers of people and significant amounts of time - famine, flood, drought, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, snowslide, etc.

But, the one thing that every culture is pretty much agreed on is that the world we live in is very nice indeed. This has been a pretty reliable constant perception for most of human history and most of human culture - with the exceptions noted above.

So, the first evidence, the evidence of the world, seems to speak in favor of a father figure.

Now, we have two more kinds of evidence to check out: the prophets and God's direct revelation.

For prophets, we have a significant problem. Most people would agree that a good number of those in the "prophet" class are false prophets - they aren't really from God, they are just out for themselves or for something they want. Jim Jones, the guy in Guiana who poisoned all his followers and himself back in the seventies would be one example of somneone who is roundly considered a false prophet. Apart from the followers of Reverend Moon, most would consider him a false prophet. The list is very long. We have to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff in this area. After all, we want the people who are really sending God's messages into the world. Any thoughts on how we separate them out?

Notice also that this is where we begin to veer away from the Matrix construct. While the illusion found in the Matrix agrees with the testimony of human culture, only a minority of the prophets who claim to be speaking for a creator god or gods provide evidence that match what the Oracle or Morpheus give. Buddha, for instance, will deny that he is a god or that there is a god. He will merely claim to be awake. The Hindus have nearly endless avatars, but they all turn out to be different instantiations of one god, and this god does not appear to be a machine. Ditto for any other religious system you care to name. No one has posited that reality is run by machines.

This may be because they had insufficient familiarity with AI or it may be due to the fact that the creator is not a machine. Certainly it will be one or the other.

Originally posted by bac1087
when the architect says he made a perfect world for humans, its not because he wants them to be happy. he knows that if humans figure out theyre being held in captvity theyll try to escape and then theyll lose their food source. i dont think the architect is being good to us like a father figure but rather just doing what will keep him and the rest of the machines alive by creating a convincing world the humans will want to stay in and wont realize is fake

Quite true. It is something along the lines of a symbiotic relationship. Further, note this - the programs have a distinct distaste for mankind. Remember Agent Smith in the first movie, as he spoke of hatred for the smell of mankind, their cancerous ability to reproduce, etc.

If the creator is a father figure, he would display just the opposite. He would have a willingness to share space with mankind, a love of the smell of their sweat (for He created it, after all), a love for pressing the flesh with them.

This is something to keep in mind when we look at our own reality and examine the various belief systems. Does the system betray a hatred for or a love for mankind, and how does the philosophy support or distract from that supposition.

Originally posted by G.A.O.T.U.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------fiatlux wrote:

This is essentially what Neo is doing. He is using natural reason alone. First, he was given the proof of nature (the world is an illusion), then the proof of prophets (the Oracle), then the proof of divine revelation (the Architect). From these three successive proofs, he has drawn certain conclusions. These conclusions are logically coherent and fit the evidence he's been given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Each of the agents you mention, Morpheus, Oracle and Architect, each has their own agendas. Neo has yet to discover his. It is interesting to me that one of the major decisions he made on his own was to reject the Architect/Deity construct.

G.A.O.T.U.

Indeed true. Furthermore, this rejection necessarily involved the deaths of a quarter million individuals, including many people who had specifically sought him out to ask his protection for themselves or for loved ones.

Now, would Zion have been saved if he had chosen the other door? Probably not. He would have had to re-establish it with 23 people, which would seem to indicate that the quarter million would die anyway.

He was given the illusion of choice, not real choice - which is precisely what the Merovingian indicated would happen. The M and Persephone are almost certainly an earlier version of Neo-Trinity. Indeed, I expect Trinity to have some of Persephone's capabilities in Revolutions. I also would not be surprised to see M help Neo accomplish his task. M could go either way at this point.

This is yet another evidence that the machines are not a father figure, they are abusers. Fathers give real choices. Abusers give the illusion of choice.

before i say what i came here to say (or write i guess) i just wanted G.A.O.T.U. know that you can quote someone without having to make the lines yourself and stuff by just clicking the quote button next to there name.

anyway, although this is slightly off topic (but then again this whole discussion is off the topic this thread presented:p ) i do not think that the Merovingian is a previous Neo. i saw the movie again and one of the things i noticed was M said to Neo "your predecessors had much more respect." from the way he says it sounds like he isnt one of his predecessors (other ones) and also like he has been in every other version of the matrix (and played an important role. however to cobat my argument he also couldve meant ghost and niobe by "your predecessors" because they were there before (in enter the matrix).

another thing i just wanted to add (but way off topic again) is a scene from the very begining of the movie when neo is fighting the agents and he says "upgrades". this is a proof for the whole 'what is the anomaly?' question. iv seen noone else bring up this proof yet so i decided to say it. when neo fought those agents, b4 they came in they said that whole speech like shall we proceed, yes he is only, human. i dont know if anyone realized but the whole thing goes "it is him, the anomally, shall we proceed, yes he is still, only human." i mean isnt that direct proof the anomally is neo. sorry for goin so off topic but picked up on alotta stuff ma 2nd time

To answer fiatlux- you're right again- we have no religious proof fof a world ruled by machines. But is that so surprising? Once upon a time, people stumbled upon the idea of a creator, and since all they knew, and could relate to, was themselves, they effectively made God in their own image. (not trying to be blasphemous) The answer could just as easily have been a machine as a ruler, but with no capability of understanding that, they made a God who was similar to themselves.

Originally posted by fiatlux
Indeed true. Furthermore, this rejection necessarily involved the deaths of a quarter million individuals, including many people who had specifically sought him out to ask his protection for themselves or for loved ones.

I don't think that the 250k people necessarily died. We do not see that in M2. The words from the various entities in the Matrix can be interpreted in many ways.

For instance, the Architect says that Neo cannot prevent Trinity's death even if he chooses to renter the Matrix. This turns out to be a factual statement. Trinity does indeed die.

However, Neo resuscitates her. Therefore, if Neo interpreted the Architect's statements the way the Architect wanted, Trinity would be indeed be dead.

Neo rejected the obvious interpretation of the Architect's words, set aside what he thought he saw in his dream and did what he felt was best.

Unless I misunderstood the ending, Zion still stands at then end of M2.

G.A.O.T.U.

P.S. Thanks to bac1087. I didn't know this was just html.

Originally posted by Truth
To answer fiatlux- you're right again- we have no religious proof fof a world ruled by machines. But is that so surprising? Once upon a time, people stumbled upon the idea of a creator, and since all they knew, and could relate to, was themselves, they effectively made God in their own image. (not trying to be blasphemous) The answer could just as easily have been a machine as a ruler, but with no capability of understanding that, they made a God who was similar to themselves.

You are quite right - at some point, whether right from the beginning or later, people came up with the idea of a creator. Now, is that because the idea correctly describes reality or is it because the idea is useful but does not correctly describe reality?

For instance, people have come up with the ideas, at various times, that the world is flat and that the world is round. Both ideas were and are useful in certain respects, but one happens to be right and the other wrong. That is, one turns out to be a lot more useful because it accurately describes reality.

Now, of the various kinds of creator gods which man has come up with, most have been anthropomorphic, that is, most have resembled men in some way. The Roman and Greek gods are excellent examples of this. Judaism and Christianity were unique in asserting a god who is one as a first principle - interestingly enough many of the other religions also asserted a single or highest god, but you only found out about him after passing through initiation into adulthood. The nature gods tended to have this characteristic.

So, the question we have to ask is, do men hold this idea because it is useful in certain respects (like "the earth is flat" idea)or do they hold the idea because it is correct (like "the earth is round" idea)?

One of the things that needs to be considered in the answer is the peculiar place mankind seems to hold in the world (although one could argue about whether or not this holds as you increase the scale to consider the entire universe). Mankind has uniquely powerful capabilities to interact with and alter his environment and to effect other creatures in it.

This has been true for most of human history - mankind has been as a god to the rest of the world, for we have long decided what plants and animals live and which ones die, what physical geographic features stay and which ones get changed. One simple example might suffice: Eurasia used to be one enormous forest, from central France through to the Pacific Ocean. It made the Amazon look like a backyard garden. It's all gone now, because we chopped it down.

When we consider divine attributes, it is worthwhile to remember that the creator - whoever or whatever it is - has put man in this peculiar position of demi-god in relation to his own environment. If we assume that the created things provide evidence for what kind of creator we have, and we remember that man is as much a created thing as the rest of the world, then I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the Creator betrayed his hand to at least some extent in the relationships he sets up between man and the rest of the world. That is, I think it is reasonable to assume that the Creator gave to man some aspects of his own attributes. The world reflects the relationship God has with it, and with the particular creations within it.

Originally posted by G.A.O.T.U.
I don't think that the 250k people necessarily died. We do not see that in M2. The words from the various entities in the Matrix can be interpreted in many ways.

For instance, the Architect says that Neo cannot prevent Trinity's death even if he chooses to renter the Matrix. This turns out to be a factual statement. Trinity does indeed die.

However, Neo resuscitates her. Therefore, if Neo interpreted the Architect's statements the way the Architect wanted, Trinity would be indeed be dead.

Neo rejected the obvious interpretation of the Architect's words, set aside what he thought he saw in his dream and did what he felt was best.

Unless I misunderstood the ending, Zion still stands at then end of M2.

G.A.O.T.U.

P.S. Thanks to bac1087. I didn't know this was just html.

Well, Bane was the sole survivor the Hammond picked up out of Zion after the squiddies continued their dig, so I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that close to a quarter million people died there. Remember, the Hammond's crew testified that "it wasn't a fight, it was a slaughter."

Originally posted by fiatlux The world reflects the relationship God has with it, and with the particular creations within it. [/B]

So what do we deduce from this?

Originally posted by Truth
So what do we deduce from this?

Well, when we consider the peculiar relationship mankind has with the rest of creation, and we recognize that creation is itself a way in which the Creator displays his attributes to His created, we can deduce that mankind is peculiarly adept at displaying the attributes of God. That is, we could say that God and man are, in some sense, mirror images of one another. The image may not be perfect, but we clearly have a connection to the Creator which most of the rest of creation doesn't have.

Now, if that was all we said we would be running a bit amiss, for we have further evidence in the purely natural order. We have our own desires and yearnings.

It is clearly the case that the world has both good and evil contained within it and operating simultaneously together. If we were made to live in an illusion, we would be perfectly content with it. Similalry, if we were made to live with evil and good co-existing, we would find no problem with it. This would be paradise, for it would be exactly the world we were made to occupy. However, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks this world is paradise.

Thus, we can conclude - from the evidence of our own discomfort with the way the world works - that the world is supposed to look fundamentally different than it does. This is the source of the idea that the world is an illusion. We know, from the evidence of our own being, our own positions within the created order, that something is seriously screwed.

Since the Creator made us along with everything else, we can conclude either that the Creator is exceedingly cruel and intended this sense of continual unease, or that something is wrong with creation.

Now, is the Creator senselessly cruel? Again, it would seem not, for there are endless instances of happiness and joy in the world - just not perfection. As has already been pointed out, the machines that control the Matrix tried to make men happy (for their own purposes, true, but they tried). Notice, however, that the machines NEVER claimed to have created man. Indeed, the very reason that the Matrix doesn't work lies precisely in the fact that the machines DID NOT make man.

They don't know how to tailor a working environment to man's specifications. It is always missing something, thus the anomaly, Neo.

There must be a creator beyond the machines, beyond man himself - for we likewise are unable to tailor existence to our specifications. The closest the machines can get is to give man free choice and a pleasant life. That's about as far as we get as well. This seems to indicate that the Creator made man for these things. That, in turn, raises the possibility that creation is screwed up not because the Creator made it so, but because of something we freely chose. We now have to consider the possibility that we are co-equal actors in the game of creation. That is, instead of blaming it on God or gods, we have to consider that creation is screwed up because of us.

It could be God.
It could be us.
Most people are more than willing to consider the first possibility, but balk at the second because they find it hurts their self-esteem. We can't allow our self-esteem to stand in the way of the truth, so we have to consider both possibilities.

Originally posted by fiatlux
Well, Bane was the sole survivor the Hammond picked up out of Zion after the squiddies continued their dig, so I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that close to a quarter million people died there. Remember, the Hammond's crew testified that "it wasn't a fight, it was a slaughter."

Actually the "slaughter" was of the five ships sent by Zion to counter attack the sentinels. Bane was the only survivor of the 5 ships. The sentinels then began to dig towards Zion again.

Neo has not sacrificed 250k for Trinity.

G.A.O.T.U.

Originally posted by fiatlux
Thus, we can conclude - from the evidence of our own discomfort with the way the world works - that the world is supposed to look fundamentally different than it does. This is the source of the idea that the world is an illusion. We know, from the evidence of our own being, our own positions within the created order, that something is seriously screwed.



Fiatlux: that is exactly the point. As you point out, were are distinctly uncomfortable with our reality. For some of us we are merely unsatisfied, and for some we are entirely disillusioned with this reality.

As this would seem to show that our reality was actually intended to be something else, how do we discover what that something is? If anything, this would bring us much closer to answering the question of the good or bad creator, and would certainly help in the discussion for the intentions of creation.

Originally posted by Truth
Fiatlux: that is exactly the point. As you point out, were are distinctly uncomfortable with our reality. For some of us we are merely unsatisfied, and for some we are entirely disillusioned with this reality.

As this would seem to show that our reality was actually intended to be something else, how do we discover what that something is? If anything, this would bring us much closer to answering the question of the good or bad creator, and would certainly help in the discussion for the intentions of creation.

Well, we can look to two sources:

1) our own instincts about what the world should look like. Since we are created, our instincts are an aspect of natural revelation, the evidence of the created world.

2) what prophets have to say about what the world should look like. We have the problem of distinguishing false prophets from true ones, but part of that can be overcome through appeals to (1), keeping in mind that - if we are the source of the evil in the world in any sense, some of our instincts may be corrupted.

Now, human cultures appeal to concepts like truth, justice and beauty to right perceived wrongs in the world. That means we must have an innate perception or instinct for truth, justice and beauty. These things must have objective existence, and must have been part of the originally intended created order in some sense, for they are part of us. We also recognize an inherent urge towards freedom and away from slavery. No culture ever petitioned another, asking to be slaves. We recognize an inherent urge towards order (law, if you will) and away from chaos. Further, we recognize an inherent need to communicate with our Creator - every human society has some kind of ritual which is supposed to set up and run this communication. Many other moral instincts can be identified, but when we examine ourselves and our ideals, these certainly begin the list.

Gnostics will say that these instincts do not derive from the created order, they derive from the divine spark within us, the uncreated order. Each of us is a divine spark, trapped within the world by a cruel demigod who created the world as an illusion to shield us from knowing about our true selves. In other words, the world is messed up and it isn't our fault, it is the Creator's (an evil demi-god).

Further, they recognize a being higher than the Creator, and *HE* is the source of the divine spark - that's why we feel unease in creation, because the Creator faces the same problem the machines do in the Matrix: the machines didn't make us, so they can't program a solution, the Creator didn't make the divine spark (it came from the one above the Creator), so he can't program a good solution either.

IN a real sense, the Gnostic Creator is not necessarily intentionally evil, he's just stupid, and his stupidity, his inability to program a solution, is the cause of evil, for we deserve better than what he can give us, even when he's trying to give us his best.

Christians (and to a certain extent, Jews) will say that our instincts and perceptions are indeed, signs of divinity stamped upon us, for we are made in the image and likeness of God. However, the evil in the world comes not from the creator, but from us, the ones to whom He gave free choice. There are two classes of non-divine persons in this schema: angels and human beings. Both were given power to act as co-creators (though in different ways), both chose to use this power to re-make the world in our image instead of helping it grow in God's image. In this schema, *WE* are the stupid Demiurge.

Now, which is correct?

I look at the evil in the world and I know I am responsible for some of it, because I am not so stupid as to be completely unaware of the consequences of my own freely chosen actions. I am also aware enough to realize that I'm not the only person freely choosing to act this way. I see George doing it to my left, I see Cynthia doing the same to the right. Sometimes George and Cynthia and I, sometimes we do nice things, but each of us also do evil things.

Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the right one.

If you believe that, then Gnosis is needlessly complex.
I don't need to look any farther than the mirror to know where evil comes from. It comes from me. Thus, the Christian explanation is much more likely than any of the others. It describes exactly what I see in the simplest possible way.

It tells me I have the divine co-creative power that I sense within me (who really believes we are supposed to work in four-foot high cubicles all day long?), it tells me that I am so powerful that my own sins can cause havoc throughout the world, that my own good actions can help heal large portions of the reality around me, and it tells me what I already know from observing my own actions - I do both good things and I sin.

It explains why I have an instinct to cling to the True, the Beautiful and the Good - I am made in the image and likeness of a True, Beautiful and Good God.

It tells me why I pine for love - God is love and I am like God.

It tells me why I fail - I want to remake the world in my image, and I am finite, so I can't remake it infinitely good. I have not the power. Further, God wanted each of us and all of creation to reflect His infinitely glorious love, and by using myself as the template instead of Him, I can't get there from here.

The best definition of sin that has ever been given, for my money, is from Thomas Aquinas - sin is choosing the good instead of the best. I choose myself instead of God. That's good, but not good enough, and so I become the evil Demi-urge, simply because I refuse to let the Expert work and insist on doing it My Way.

That's why the Matrix and Gnosticism resonates so strongly with so many people. It's a good explanation, but it's not the best.

............um, somehow I don't like the way this discussion is going. You're much too intelligent, and I don't want to have to admit that you 'might' be right!

still, my idea might not be the best explanation, but it could still be true........................

Originally posted by Truth
............um, somehow I don't like the way this discussion is going. You're much too intelligent, and I don't want to have to admit that you 'might' be right!

still, my idea might not be the best explanation, but it could still be true........................

The only way any explanation can be true is if it is the best explanation.

Objective reality exists.
We can know it.
Any explanation which is entirely conformed to reality is the best explanation.

You know, that's the only really accurate definition of humility: recognizing and responding to reality.

Which means pride is failing to recognize or failing to respond to reality. That's why pride is a sin - when anyone fails to recognize or fails to respond to reality, someone is gonna get hurt, probably several someones.

Originally posted by fiatlux
Which means pride is failing to recognize or failing to respond to reality. That's why pride is a sin - when anyone fails to recognize or fails to respond to reality, someone is gonna get hurt, probably several someones.
Otherwise known as hubris.

I don't mean to intrude into this wonderful discussion in a damaging way, but even after skimming a few of the latest posts, I am driven to make one remark.

If any of you have been following the "MIAM / no MIAM" chains on this board, you'll notice something very strange. The material evidence from all Matrix films only takes each debater out to a certain point...after which, there is no more evidence to be had. Beyond, of course, lies only conjecture.

But does that stop our two passionate opposing camps? Not in the least! And so it seems to me that the only thing that could be driving all of these cynics past the point of hard evidence is that five-letter word they don't talk about in polite company:

Faith.

One either believes in MIAM from the outset, or one does not. It matters not what authorities or cited research the opposing camp can muster, the belief remains paramount.

And if THAT isn't the most darnedest human quality that gets under the Architect's skin the worst, I'll eat my mouse.

As fiatlux pointed out- if we follow occam's razor we find that the simplest answer is usually the right one. Usually! Which would therefore mean that sometimes, the simplest explanation is completely wrong.

And yes, the only way that I can possibly believe what I believe is by a complete leap of faith. You have made your point through very eloquent and well thought out arguments, but I still don't believe it. Isn't that the whole point of faith?

During this discussion we have come to the conclusion that there was definitely a creator. We have also decided that this reality is probably not what that creator intended for us.

Basically, we live in a world that is logical, reasonable and mathematiclly precise to the smallest atom. Everything works like clockwork- seasons, things like gravity, and nature itself. As we have found, we are not logical, reasonable and mathematically precise. So, we are in a place that we do not match.
It continues with reason to think that these two very different things were therefore created by two very different entities.

Think about it, we believe that we were created in God's image, and therefore given emotions and free choice, for what is creating mankind, if not an expression of free choice? (God wanted to do it, and so He did.) Our emotions are what make us human, and different from the world we live in.

In contrast, why is the world so precise? Why does everything run perfectly? (I am, of course talking about things that are independent from the power of humans.) What could possibly create a world that is so logical? It would have to be something based on logic and reason itself. What is the most logical thing we have in existence now? That's right, computers. So why could it not follow that this reality was indeed created by computers- by AI?

But what about the proof?

Fiatlux, you made the point that there are three kinds of proof, our reality, prophets, and divine intervention.

Reality.
We have already agreed that for many of us, the world feels somehow wrong. I have made the point that this could well be due to two creators. Many people would agree with this. We feel uncomfortable because we were not intended to be here. This is the evidence of the world around us.

Prophets.
First of all what is a prophet? A good definition would be an inspired teacher. A prophet only truly becomes a prophet when his message is believed. Therefore, the Wachowski brothers could be prophets. Ontologists and metaphysicians could be prophets. It all depends on whether you believe what they say.
Of course, another way to identify a prophet is by deciding who faithfully believes what they themselves are saying, and who is speading a message simply to gain power for themselves.

In the Matrix movies, Morpheus can be identified as a cult leader type of character. His doctrine would be very difficult to believe if he was on a street corner or preaching on the tv. Yet, we know that he throughly believes what he says.

To be freed from the Matrix, we see that not everyone is suitable. MAny poeple are so 'immerged, so attached to the system, that they will fight to protect it'. Does this not sound like people who would argue that the reality we live in is real?
As we see, they only 'recruit' lonely, isolated, disillusioned individuals. This is just like a cult. They are very secretive- just like a cult. They have complete reverence and faith in the 'prophecies'- again, just like a cult.

We usually see cults as somewhat 'crazy' groups of people led by one 'prophet' who they follow with complete faith. This is just like the Neb. team. While spaceships hidden in comet tails sound far-fetched, some people believed. And believed enough to 'risk everything'. How do we know they were wrong? And does this idea sound any crazier that this world is merely a 'computer generated dream world'? No, it doesn't.

So simply put, because we can't prove or disprove a theory, it doesn't make it false. They had faith, you have faith, and so do I. It all comes down to whether or not we believe.

Divine Revelation.
Quite simply put, as far as I can see, there is none. But if we really are in a computer program, it makes sense that the programmers would either keep out any revelations, or disguise them so well we would never know they were there. If this is a computer program, the program could keep out the messages from the human creator, and they would, in their logic be able to hide anything that we might interpret as a message within the reality. This is why we can have no evidence. It is deliberately disguised.

To conclude, although I have made my argument, I understand that it will probably convince no-one. It doesn't matter. My beliefs do not require others to believe also.

I have faith.

Originally posted by Truth
Basically, we live in a world that is logical, reasonable and mathematiclly precise to the smallest atom. Everything works like clockwork- seasons, things like gravity, and nature itself. As we have found, we are not logical, reasonable and mathematically precise. So, we are in a place that we do not match.
It continues with reason to think that these two very different things were therefore created by two very different entities.


Human beings are very different from God. :)


Think about it, we believe that we were created in God's image, and therefore given emotions and free choice, for what is creating mankind, if not an expression of free choice? (God wanted to do it, and so He did.) Our emotions are what make us human, and different from the world we live in.

In contrast, why is the world so precise? Why does everything run perfectly? (I am, of course talking about things that are independent from the power of humans.) What could possibly create a world that is so logical? It would have to be something based on logic and reason