David Falkayn contemplates van Rijn as the Omnipotent:
"'Hey, what a thought, creation operated for profit!...'"
-Poul Anderson, Satan's World IN Anderson, David Falkayn: Star Trader (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 329-598 AT XIII, p. 448.
Later, he imagines the transmutation of van Rijn into:
"'A new isotope. Van Rijn-235, no, likelier Vr-235.000 -'"
-Poul Anderson, "Lodestar" IN David Falkayn: Star Trader, pp. 631-680 AT p. 639.
The first speculation is philosophically significant if only as envisaging an impossibility. A hypothetical creator cannot possibly extract any profit from his creation:
I believe in neither an omnipotent
creator nor a hereafter but what would follow from these premises? First,
universalism. An omnipotent creator would be able to “save” all of his
creatures. I did not include benevolence among the premises but I argue that it
is implicit in omnipotence. Only finite power can be or needs to be oppressive.
An infinitely powerful being would not be able to profit by exploiting finite
beings. We would not be able to make anything for him that he could not
effortlessly have made for himself. Indeed, by definition, he already is
everything that he might want to be. Therefore, his only purpose in creating us
must have been for our benefit. It follows that infinite power differs not
quantitatively but qualitatively from finite power, however great.
-copied from here.
The second speculation is practically significant because it starts Falkayn thinking about a possible natural source of supermetals: Lodestar; Mirkheim.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But no reasonably orthodox Christian believes God NEEDS anything or anyone. Rather, the reason He created the cosmos was from divine love. I like the way Dante answered the question of why God created the universe: "Not to increase His good, which cannot be, / But that His splendour, shining back, might say: / BEHOLD, I AM, in His eternity, / Beyond the measurement of night and day, / Beyond all boundary, as He did please, / New Loves Eernal Love shed from His ray" (PARADISE, XXIX, 13-18, trans. Dorothy L. Sayers).
Sean
Sean,
Yes, so the idea of creation run for profit, while amusing, is impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly!
Sean
Post a Comment