Why would gods use cultural diffusion?

[an anarchist]

It seems reasonable that something that avoids the weaknesses would be better. For instance, if God is writing a book via prophets, it’s reasonable to assume that God has something God wants to say or something God wants people to know.

Rather than telling people through such an inefficient, error-prone method, why not just directly give newborns this knowledge that God wants us to know?

Don’t mean to go off on a tangent here, but I think this is relevant.
Taoism teaches this, as well as Buddhism. That God gives us this knowledge upon conception. Buddhism will teach that the child is more enlightened than the adult, because of this. Taoism teaches that it is primordial yang energy that everyone is born with. As we mix with our corrupt environment and influences, that yang energy gets corrupted. Buddhism teaches of the corruption of the soul in a similar manner.
Th purpose of Taoism is to return to the pure yang, discarding false yang.
Taoism and Buddhism teaches that God is knowable to everybody, they need to only look inward. Meditation helps with this.
Knowledge of God is primal knowledge. We become corrupted, and we lose clarity on the reality of God.
I challenge you to look deep within yourself. In your search of the correct answers on the reality of God, this is what you should do. Don’t look at these corruptible texts, subject to cultural diffusion.
To find proof of God you need to look within.

 

[Meow Mix]

Which would go back to us and computers.

Anyway, how would you or I know this is a better methodology? How would we know in another 1000 years this would work better and for what plan?

Well, if you really wanted to tell everyone in the world something, would you tell one person in secret and expect them to pass on the message, or would you broadcast your message directly to everybody?

We can ask “how do we know this or that,” but the fact remains that if the goal is to communicate, there are objectively better ways to communicate. Then it would be good to have some explanation for why a better method wasn’t used.

If the goal wasn’t to communicate, then why books at all? What was the goal then?

If we answer any of these questions with “who knows, God is very mysterious and we can’t hope to understand it,” isn’t that just very unsatisfying?

 

[dybmh]

How did you reach this conclusion?

Do you disagree?

 

[firedragon]

Well, if you really wanted to tell everyone in the world something, would you tell one person in secret and expect them to pass on the message, or would you broadcast your message directly to everybody?

If I really wanted to communicate to every single person in the world, and I had the ability to hard code it in everyones minds and had the ability, yes, I would definitely hard code everything which means I am creating computers with software. Simple.

But how would you know what I want? (This is only applicable because you know I exist).

 

[Koldo]

Do you disagree?

Yes, I do.

 

[Koldo]

If I really wanted to communicate to every single person in the world, and I had the ability to hard code it in everyones minds and had the ability, yes, I would definitely hard code everything which means I am creating computers with software. Simple.

But how would you know what I want? (This is only applicable because you know I exist).

Do you mean it is impossible to do it with human minds?

 

[firedragon]

Do you mean it is impossible to do it with human minds?

If you do it with human minds, its the same as with computers. You are making difference with the materials. materials dont matter. Maybe one day humans will make computers made out of biological materials.

Computer is a machine, not the raw material its constructed with. Hope you understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

If I really wanted to communicate to every single person in the world, and I had the ability to hard code it in everyones minds and had the ability, yes, I would definitely hard code everything which means I am creating computers with software. Simple.

But how would you know what I want? (This is only applicable because you know I exist).

Why do you ask? Doesn’t this problem exist with cultural diffusion as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My answer is the same for this as for why doesn't God create a world without evil or suffering. The process of learning and developing from a primitive society has more value than having a perfected society from the very beginning.

Convenient that the wisest course of action for God always involves never giving any evidence for his existence.

 

[dybmh]

I missed this response earlier, sorry.

No worries Thanks for the reply.

In what way does transmitting information to people make their society perfect? I am imagining there would still be different cultures, just with whatever information God wants them to have from holy texts implanted.

I'm assuming that the whole point of prophecy and scripture is to give people instructions how to live and be successful in this life and the afterlife. "Successful" is subjective and depends on the religion, but, if we assume a benevolent message, then, perfect prophecy and scripture would result in perfect transmission of perfect instructions leading to perfectly successful societies.

In this perfect scenario, each culture, each individual would get tailor made instructions provided to accomodate differences in intellectual/emotional/physical capabilites. It would also need to proactivley address any questions or possible pitfalls each individual would have. Yes, implanting them, seems like a good way to describe it.

If the information in the holy texts isn’t that important (such that it doesn’t matter that it spreads slowly, or gets region locked, or gets mistranslated, etc.), then do you not believe there are infinite consequences for believing the right holy text?

What I'm saying is that the slowing spreading, region-locked, mistranslations are assets not liabilites. The biggest among them is an individual can claim plausible deniability. But besides that, if the purpose is not perfection, but is instead the process to perfection, then having imperfect beginnings makes the process more impressive.

 

[Koldo]

If you do it with human minds, its the same as with computers. You are making difference with the materials. materials dont matter. Maybe one day humans will make computers made out of biological materials.

Computer is a machine, not the raw material its constructed with. Hope you understand.

I am not sure what the problem is then...

 

[dybmh]

Yes, I do.

Why?

 

[Koldo]

Why?

Because nothing can be better than perfection.

 

[dybmh]

Because nothing can be better than perfection.

"Better" is subjective.

 

[viole]

If I really wanted to communicate to every single person in the world, and I had the ability to hard code it in everyones minds and had the ability, yes, I would definitely hard code everything which means I am creating computers with software. Simple.

But we have already a natural intuition about things. Our brain does not come as a tabula rasa at birth. We have, so to speak, an operating system at birth. We could not survive one second without that.

So, why not a similar native intuition about the true God, too? That would not even cost any rewiring, given our natural predisposition to believe God, Allah, Zeus, the great Juju, Thor, etc. Probably it would even simplify things by removing variants.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

"Better" is subjective.

How can anything be better than perfection?
Perfection is, by the definition, the better that can be.

 

[viole]

How can anything be better than perfection?
Perfection is, by the definition, the better that can be.

Well, perfect evil does not work like that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Meow Mix]

No worries Thanks for the reply.
I'm assuming that the whole point of prophecy and scripture is to give people instructions how to live and be successful in this life and the afterlife. "Successful" is subjective and depends on the religion, but, if we assume a benevolent message, then, perfect prophecy and scripture would result in perfect transmission of perfect instructions leading to perfectly successful societies.

In this perfect scenario, each culture, each individual would get tailor made instructions provided to accomodate differences in intellectual/emotional/physical capabilites. It would also need to proactivley address any questions or possible pitfalls each individual would have. Yes, implanting them, seems like a good way to describe it.
What I'm saying is that the slowing spreading, region-locked, mistranslations are assets not liabilites. The biggest among them is an individual can claim plausible deniability. But besides that, if the purpose is not perfection, but is instead the process to perfection, then having imperfect beginnings makes the process more impressive.

Why is it more impressive if it leads people to doubt, for instance? Isn’t that the opposite of giving important information?

For instance, the inefficiency of cultural diffusion as a method of information transmission was one of the very first things that led me away from Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

Well, perfect evil does not work like that.

Ciao

- viole

It does, depending on your frame of reference.

 

[viole]

It does, depending on your frame of reference.

Things that depend on frames of reference are not covariant. Ergo, not absolute, really. And surely not perfect.

Ciao

- viole