0
$\begingroup$

This setting follows a religion in which a god, originally a unisex entity and the seat of human consciousness, split himself into two separate beings and reincarnate into mortal forms. These two beings would be the primogenitors of the human race, each possessing half of god's original qualities and attributes and explaining the sexual dimorphism in our species. Females were given the gift of magic and males were given the gift of strength. This has led to the condition that we are divine beings due to having a piece of god in each of us. In the end of days, god will reform into one perfect entity once again in a rapture-like event. We as humans will transcend our mortal bodies, becoming divine once again and become one with the human consciousness.

It needed to reincarnate itself as human to gather information about the mortal world. The more people are on the planet, the more things it can learn, so it drives people on an instinctual level to reproduce. At some point, this god will reassemble itself from all of humanity in a rapture-like event. Humans, both living and dead, will be called back into the one being and ascend into the human consciousness. This cycle of birth and death of the universe will continue with god creating a new species using the data gathered from the last cycle.

Seeing as how this being created the universe and everything in it, it would stand to reason that it would already know everything about its creation and how it works. Why would a god need mortals to gather data on the world that itself created?

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by kingledion, Renan, ArtificialSoul, Raditz_35, Frostfyre Sep 21 '18 at 15:42

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Because sex is more fun than budding. $\endgroup$ – Renan Sep 21 '18 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is just opinion based. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Sep 21 '18 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that this is going to be opinion based. We can't speak to the rationale of a single individual on WorldBuilding. However, I've put forth an answer anyways. There's a direct connection between what you ask and the Hindu cosmology. Given that that cosmology is one of a few fundamental archetypes for how we contsruct cosmology, and it includes a god that breaks into many pieces/aspects, I felt that was generic enough to use as an answer. The basic beliefs of 1 billion people seems like a reasonable prior-art to write about an otherwise opinion based question. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Sep 21 '18 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ If the wording to the question could be amended to not be so opinion based, I could probably also put forth 2 other decent answers based on other cosmologies. That would cover the beliefs of most of the human population, and then you could draw from those to answer your particular god's concerns. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Sep 21 '18 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ @CortAmmon I got Christianity covered, although feel free to comment if you think there are worthwhile amendments to make! $\endgroup$ – Qami Sep 21 '18 at 14:42
1
$\begingroup$

Because relationship is an important (indispensable?) part of what it means to be human/divine.

This answer only works if the above claim is true--but if it is, then it provides a solid basis for why a god would create two sexes. With two sexes, the need to look outside oneself for fulfillment--the need for community and mutual support--is built into the very fabric of our nature. Reproduction is the single most important thing a physical organism must be able to do [citation needed], and a species that requires two individuals (of two different natures, with different sets of needs) to do this basic thing--this creates an arena in which it's impossible to do well without caring for someone other than oneself.

(This answer is brought to you by Christianity, which believes that God is--somehow, paradoxically--three distinct "persons" that somehow make up one God, and so relationship is built into the very deity itself. Is your god in relationship with other gods, or other beings? If so, that would provide a similar reason to have relationship as a central part of what it means to be human/divine.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please note that in the context of the Christian Holy Trinity, persons is the Latin translation, which uses an older meaning of the word persona (= a personage, a character as potrayed by an actor). The original Greek word is hypostases. In general, theology uses metaphysical terminology, where words like energy, substance, cause and so on carry the meanings they had in the late antiquity; they do not have the meanings they acquired in common speech under the influence of modern science. $\endgroup$ – AlexP Sep 23 '18 at 17:23
1
$\begingroup$

To compete the trio I mentioned in my answer based on Hinduism and Qami's answer based on Christianity, some religions view the world as nature. It simply does what it does. It needs no rationale. We may apply a rationale to it, but it, itself, does not need one.

The Daoist beliefs would not recognize the potential for any individual to be perfect unless that individual was the Dao -- the way. Even that phrasing is not quite right, for the Dao cannot be treated as an individual.

The Dao that can be written is not the Eternal Dao.

The Dao is perfect because it simply does. It doesn't think. It doesn't rationalize. It just does. Or perhaps it doesn't even quite do that. The concept of wu wei, "Action without action" is applicable here. To describe the doing of the Dao, it is not enough to just say it does. In the same breath, one must also try to capture "it is the doing" and "it is acted upon." All three must mean the same thing if you're properly capturing this strangeness.

If such a Dao were to "split," it would still be the Dao. It would only be our perception of it that split into male and female. "In the end," The two halves would rejoin, though that phrasing is funny because they were never really separated.

As such, you would not find a reason for the Dao to split. The question of why the Dao split is mu ( 無). It is a question that needs to be unasked. At the same time, it would be reasonable for the characters in your book to come up with all sorts of reasons for the split. In fact, its reasonable for your characters to come up with reasons related to the other answers here. One may come up with the idea that the world is a drama, or that relationship is divine. One may come up with all sorts of ideas for why the split occurred, but at the same time recognize that they are still one Dao, and that the split is only in your mind.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

This talks very much to a single individual's rational, which makes it tricky to answer on WorldBuilding. The rationale for a person is whatever they want. This is doubly tricky because the individual is a god, and they have even more options on the table. However, in this case I think there's some very strong prior art in the Hindu belief system and the god Brahma. The cosmology surrounding Brahma is one of what the philosopher Alan Watts called the three main world views of the world, so it seems general enough to serve a purpose here. (The other two he defines are "the world as a clay pot," shared by the Abrahamic religions, and "the world as nature," shared by the Chinese religions and those affected by them).

This is told per Alan Watt's wording in his lecture series Introduction to Hinduism and some of the related lectures he spoke. I do often wonder how much he adds to the story, but I find the additions good for inspiration. I defer to those who practice the religion if I got any details incorrect (or fundamental errors).

In the Hindu belief, we see Brahma as a non-dual entity with two sides. On one side we have the dreamer, and on the other side we have the dreamed. Thus one can think of Brahama as having one face on one side, and many faces on the other side, one for every character being dreamed -- one for every living entity in existence! They are one in the same.

As Watts describes, the Hindu cosmology one of "the world as a drama." It can be thought of as a world where the writers and the actors and the production team put on a play and got so completely engrossed in it that, for a moment, they forgot it was a play at all. They forgot about the great hall and the auditorium before them. They simply lived an existence, gleefully searching out all the paths for those in the play. Indeed, this is fundamental that the dreamer can "get lost" in his own creation. It is a reason for a god to break into multiple pieces.

According to the end-times story related to this, there comes a great time of strife, where the great demon Kali rises up and takes control of the storyline and all of existence. And in the end, Shiva, in ultimate agony, starts to dance a dance. This is a particular dance, the Rudra Tandava, seen only twice in all of creation. And the stomping of his feet cracks the ground asunder and great flames consume all of creation.

And when the story is over, and all others lie dead, even Kali himself, Shiva looks out at the audience in the great hall, and sees them for the first time. He sees the audience watching him. He sees himself in the audience, for he is an aspect of Brahma, thus he is an aspect of all.

And so, he takes a great bow, and turns to exit at the rear of the stage. And as he turns, we see another face on the back of his head: the face of Brahma, the dreamer. It has been on the back of his head the entire time, dreaming, as it has been on the back of all of our heads. And so the cycle begins again, with Act I, Scene 1, Brahma at the center of the stage. And he begins dreaming again.

Why would a god split into two halves? Any number of reasons. Your imagination is the limit... or not. The answer might not even be limited by your imagination. But if your reason for splitting is to become non-dual: the dreamer and the dream, then drawing upon one of the major classes of cosmology from all of human religion seems to be a decent starting point.

The Archbishop is lying in the grass, asleep. He is dreaming of a grasshopper lying on his chest. Or is he? Perhaps it is the grasshopper that is lying asleep, dreaming of resting on an Archbishop's chest.

Which is real? The Archbishop or the grasshopper?

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.