[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][01.04]

plukaUID：2721764

COMMENT
This essay is so interesting that while reading, I felt the fluid of thoughts flooding into my mind. A sense of pre-destiny was aroused to some extend indeed, though, as an atheist I'd like to do delve more, to analyze, to deconstruct.


Here I'd like to define 'the atheist' in my point of view: they do not believe in gods but rules; they do not trust an almighty spirit that intervenes and controls, instead, they may admit the presence of certain universal force but such force does not interfere intentedly the living.

The author of this essay, on the other hand, apparently believed in God strongly and wanted to persuade others the eternity and omniscience of God. Here he provided almost an argument, organized in a logical(at least in structure) way.

His first contention concerned about the eternity of God. Comparing two kinds of everlasting states (one was when time flew as normal, which made us can know only a fraction of the time river; the other was when the time and universe merged into one integral object and the time ceased to flow but appeared as a whole), he proposed that the God presented in the latter way, that is, all time came at one time. This enables the divine to gain a perfect knowlege--to know every process, every detail, every past, every future and most important, every consequences. This contention serves as the basis for the next argument.

Then comes the essential point, a puzzle that baffled the adherent as well as the non-believer: Could God predict our behavior, our judgment, our intention,i.e., our personal feeling, or would he change our mind in order to fit the future he foresaw before? 

The author said "no", and his explanation is quite fascinating. The key, as he wrote( and if I understood it right), lay in the fact that God was eternity and that he could see all at once: all he needed to do was to see. That was beyond prediction; that was conviction. Therefore whatever the emotions, thoughts, changes one might experience, God saw the presence and consequence. 

The author seemed to (in my opinion) assume God's main role was to witness. For he needed to see only, he did not need to change people. 

This essay is very convincing and compelling when the reader believes in God, or even, as me, when he does not believe in. Yet inevitably comes another question: if God serves only as witness, why we need him? For human, knowing the possible future does not tantamount to have that future. There might be some relief, though, the real future awaits to be created instead of listened. The author may persuade me of the omnipresence and omniscience of God, but he did not tell me why I should care it.

赶快上课去……呜……

plukaUID：2721764

12# hugesea

Thx~
I hurried to class before so as to neglect sth, and yes, you've told it right. God then comes as a perfect judge, inspiring people to follow the virtue and goodness, right?

But still I can hardly understand and accept the point of rewards or punishments bestowed by god. Firstly, if god can see the consequence, then he surely can see those rewards or punishments on man, in another word, he see the deed of himself, out of his power, imposing on the creature. And since the realm of the divine possesses no conception of flowing time, his sight and his deeds overlap within the infinite. He saw then he does; he did then he see: there's no difference--it happens in the same time.......
我自己都被绕晕了。就是说，因为上帝是没有流动的时间观念，因此他的“目睹”与他的“行动”是没有先后之分的。他看见自己做了，就做了；他自己做了，就看见了。但同时上帝能够看到人类的全部，也就是说他在一开始也能够看到自己的奖惩对人类的结果——即，上帝的奖惩在人类一出生、甚至是出生以前就已经布置好了。他其实不需要干啥事，乖乖看着就成——事实上，他自己也干不了啥别的事了，因为他想对人类干的都超不出时间范围，也就都超不出他之前预言过的范围，于是，上帝就被自己的预言能力困住了，他不能做自己没做过的事情。那么，既然这种奖惩已经固定，可否看做是自然的一体，看做是上帝也无能为力不能再干预（虽然是他一开始做的，但他做过之后就不能再做别的来更改了）的东西？ 上帝不能干预的话，要他来干嘛？

好吧，中文也很绕……

plukaUID：2721764

14# hugesea

Hum, yeah, I knew the point now. But considering the omniprescence and the eternity, I find it's difficult to understand the omniscience of god and the unpredictable human behavior......well religion is so complex~~~~~~~

As for other things I wrote before, well, that's not what I read in the text but what I thought after reading it. Simply personal thoughts.