Yes, that's what I should have said.
>
>Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:26:09 +0000
>From: Simon Hibbs <simonh_at_msi-uk.com>
>Subject: Re: What's in a god?
>
>Danny :
>
>> If you believe in subjectivism, then yes Humakt has no free
>>will and will act only in the way his worshippers expect him to (which
>also
>>should mean no freedom of action either).
>
>I'm not a subjectivist. At least, certainly not in the strict sense you
>imply, though I have been widely accused of it during many debates on
>the subject.
>
>> ....If,
>however, you believe that the
>>worship of Humakt has grown up around Humakt being what Humakt is, then
>
>>it's not necessarily the case that Humakt has no free will.
>
>However, I believe that Humakt does have an existence independent of his
>worshipers (i.e. things would still die, etc)
But would the Brithini, Kralorelans, Pamaltelans etc, upon seeing something die, think of the death of that thing as being part of the existence of Humakt?
but that Humakt has no
>free will. You may disagree, though you have said previously that Humakt
>doesn't have free will.
I don't think I really have any feelings one way or the other, I try to avoid the free will & sobjectivism debates. It makes my head hurt.
I just think that your apparent beliefe in his
>ability to decide to change himself spontaneously is a contradiction.
>Obviously we define these terms differently, which doesn't help.
I don't believe it, everything I said was put forward as a suggestion along the lines of a Socratic dialogue (only nowhere near as intellectual).
>>Would a god exist if he had no worshippers is an interesting question,
>IMO
>
>I would say yes.
Please elaborate. I'm interested to know why you think so (or someone else
would think not)
>
>>Being the cynic & stirrer that I am, of course my view (in the minority
>of
>>one) is that all the gods were created by the priestly classes at the
>dawn
>>of time & they use the pow sacrificed to them to tap into earth power
>(for
>>want of a better term).
>
[snip many fine questions which shoot my theory down]
I didn't say it was internally consistent, I just felt it would be fun to
run a campaign and have people finally reach demi-god status to find that
it's all a big, fat nothing.
>
>>One could even say that that's the secret of the god learners.
>How could you 'say that that's the secret of the god learners', if it
>isn't?
I could say the sky is green. It isn't. Nor did I say that it is the secret I said one (ie anyone) could say, it's another matter whether they're right or not.
>I'm confused.
Sorry, didn't mean to
Powered by hypermail