|
Post by Bigboy on Jan 28, 2005 20:30:02 GMT -5
The word you want is 'corruption' btw. Ok, so if I follow your logic; -We have free will, within a limited range determined by God's will. -A corruption is caused by (our) free will finding a path outside of God's design. But if God is omnipotent, then those statements are contradictory - they imply that our will can occasionally override the will of God. I'm not a Christian, but I think I remember reading that you are - are you really suggesting that He is fallable? As for the conversation, I think some parts can be taken a little too literally; 'an act of God' is a common saying - storms and floods are often described as such. But the meaning is not generally thought of as meaning 'God thought "lets have a storm then" - and voila - a storm', but rather describing an event outside of human control. Monnitoff is using the phrase in this context - he is saying that a wormhole cannot just happen at random as Donnie stipulates, but that there are specific causal events that are beyond mankind's current control and understanding. He would specifically not bring up God in a religious context because he's not allowed to (as we can see by the way the conversation ends). He even tries to tell Donnie that his arguments don't hold water. That Donnie answers 'Not if you travel within God’s channel.' isn't (in my opinion) a reflection of the true nature of the film - at that point of the movie he's still pretty clueless and is still trying to make sense of what he is experiencing. The point is that if he doesn't know the answers at this point, you can't take that line as canonic truth. I'll admit the idea of fuzzy-fate (I should copyright that ) and avoidable destiny are attractive, but not if it limits free will. If it is limited, then it's not 'free', it's constrained. Also, can you clarify something for me - are you saying that Donnies survival defies destiny and causes the corruption?
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Jan 28, 2005 21:03:48 GMT -5
I don't mean to say that it is Donnie's not dying causes the corruption, but rather the fact of the engine and him not dying, wait, that would mean in a way his death does kinda cause a corruption because in the end the engine happened anyways and the only difference was that he died.
I am Christian (Catholic if you need to dissect it a bit further)
On your remark of god being fallable, I personally do beilive that god is not actually fully infallibable, I actually and personally do belive that he is capable of mistakes but he is able to amend them. Which in a way would make him infallible because he is able to correct the mistakes rather well and nobody will remember it except a blurry dream.
I bearly noticed this, but according to what I am saying this, anything outside "god's plan" will bring destruction to the universe. I just wanted to point out that.
I am supposing you are Jew, but I am not sure for a fact, or maybe plainly Athius, I am sorry if I am incorrect in both instances and please I do not mean it as an insult.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Jan 28, 2005 22:19:37 GMT -5
No insult taken - I am neither Jewish or an Atheist. I suppose I'm Agnostic - I don't think there are any really convincing arguments for or against the existence of a higher power, so I'm open to possibilites. But I think of myself as more of a Humanist and pragmatist. Likewise I hope no offence was caused by my commenting on your faith. Hmm - I'm, still not sure what you are saying causes the corruption. By your own logic, you are saying that the engine itself can't be the cause of the corruption and TU, because if that were the case another would be caused at the end of the movie - rendering all the previous events pointless. Indeed the way you state it would result in a looping process: 1. Engine causes TU 2. Close TU by returning engine. 3. GOTO 1 This leaves Donnies survival as the cause - but this cannot be because MD Frank is the one that prevents his death. MD Frank exists only in the TU - so the corruption must create the TU before Donnie 'cheats' death. Another way of reading your statement is that the engine killing Donnie causes the corruption - but that would take you back to a circular argument again: 1. Engine kills Donnie and causes TU 2. Close TU by returning engine. 3. GOTO 1 Also if Donnies death were the reason for the corruption, it would suggest - by your logic - that Donnie was not meant to die, but this is contrary to everything else you have been saying. Interesting, and possibly heretical considering your chosen faith! But if God created the universe, He cannot be bound by it's laws, including time. So why would he amend his mistakes within the constraints of time when He could just as easily tweak the past to ensure that the mistake never occurs (from our time constrained point of view). From our point of view He would still appear not to have made any mistakes (ie appear infallable). This is pretty similar to your conclusion but without the 'blurry dreams'. Well there are plenty of these evident in the Bible - Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowlage being an obvious one. Any time He saw something He didn't like (plan) he either rolled with it or punished the perpetrators after the fact; Soddam and Gomorrah(sp?) or the Great Flood for example.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Jan 29, 2005 0:46:11 GMT -5
Well there are plenty of these evident in the Bible - Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowlage being an obvious one. Any time He saw something He didn't like (plan) he either rolled with it or punished the perpetrators after the fact; Soddam and Gomorrah(sp?) or the Great Flood for example. I guess those would be included as undesirable effects that were not in god's plans, unless they were meant to happen or were within the spectrum of the choices they were able to choose. But I guess this would be considered taking the movie too realistic and trieng to apply it's laws into it. After all the movie isn't the bible (don't mean to say that the bible has to be 100 percent correct but)..I will explain at the end more of my stand points in religion. Again this may sound off track, specially if my preferance of religion is known, but maybe this goes to show once again that maybe even God must follow certain set rules or standards. Yes in a way I am denieng his absolute Omnipotency and Omniscency, because I belive he is powerfull and is wise beyond our reason, but he is still has human characteristics. (It is almost like asking "Is good so good that even God must say so, or is good so good because God said so?") I am not reasoning that it might be possible to play god or even to possibly to discover these certain rules under which you can supress a supreme being, the possibility might exist, but it would be incorrect in my viewpoint because it would be just as if you were commiting these indulgences to your own loving parents. Ok, now to explain my religious oxymoron statements. I was raised Catholic by both parents, but I just developed my own ideas off in my own. The mere thought of me declering myself a Catholic might sound contrivertial and hypocritical, which I give them all the rights to think so of me. I developed and still hold some or many of the Catholic values to myself, but in my discormfort with other applications, I began searching for possible answers outside of the church. After all, the bible was writte by humans who could have eisily exagerated a bit here and there... so on and so forth. I do observe most basic Catholic celebrations, but it is just mentally that I disagree with some doctorines. I have since small, found reason and cormfort by filling in these gaps with infromation and beliefs of other culture/religions and have bizzare theories about how all religions are intractly connected and several other patterns. I am not also supposing that what I believe in is the one and only correct belief system, but quite the contrary, I share some what Quaker view points that true enlightment will come from your inner light and beliefs.....meaning that no religion is incorrect and that you will reach heaven or hell (if believed in) depending on your standards and how you followed your belief. I also have the tendency of looking for a scientific approach to answer some fo the unknown factors spiritual belief can not full fill. In conclusion, my base doctorines by which I live are Catholic, and from there I branch off into weired ideas and belifs and it becomes a confusing spiderweb jumbled up with logic and atoms. So anyone can call me hypocrit call me heretical, all of that, and I will just bless them back after swearing under my breath. Maybe the corruption appears because of the engine going back in time somehow into Donnie's bedroom, unbalancing the universe somehow. But then it would mean that the event happened coincidentually and it would be nobody's will or choice who provoked it. I don't know, this whole situation is a paradox that seems to have no end (because circles have no end)
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Jan 29, 2005 10:05:19 GMT -5
The 'heretic' comment was meant in jest - so I hope no offence was caused!
And I'd call you anything but a hypocrite - I think it's pretty healthy that you can question and examine your faith objectively.
I agree with you that this discussion (as it is currently going) will just go in circles. I have no problem with circular logic, causal loops or self fulfilling prophecy, as long as it doesn't reduce to absurdity or result in contradictory ideas. Unfortunatly I don't think that a (DD) theory involving Fate v God v Free Will can avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by Madridarko on Jan 29, 2005 11:47:05 GMT -5
Oh, no, the heretical commnent was not a problem at all.
It is a strange phenomena that even if we may examine the theory in dimisculative or gigantic proportions, there will be the same loop-like principle involved.
I know that not all the possibilities have been disccused thurily yet, but I dare say that maybe even through any other percpective we view it from, the same phenomena might occur.
|
|
the farmer who wants a wife
Guest
|
Post by the farmer who wants a wife on Mar 22, 2006 16:44:10 GMT -5
DONNIE HAD TO DIE!!! this is because at the end he DIDNT remember that the engine would land on his room! he was happy, since he was happy that he fixed everything, though he couldnt remember details. since everything was fixed at the end, there was no frank saving his life, since frank wasnt killed in the end!
NB: sorry if this was posted already-i couldnt be bothered to read the posts...
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on Mar 22, 2006 21:15:54 GMT -5
if you can't be bothered to research your point, please don't bother to make one.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby on Apr 24, 2006 20:34:48 GMT -5
I kinda agree with what ur sayin... But I believe what donnie is saying is that god has given us free will. We decide on our one what choice we going to make. But still god allready knows what that choise is going to be. Ald he doesnt always like our decisions.
|
|
lindapalomathepretender
Guest
|
Post by lindapalomathepretender on Apr 24, 2006 21:02:08 GMT -5
I find it sooo cool that with this new finding of Judas' Gospel...we do have free will. It always bothered me that Jesus could 'predict' that he was going to be betrayed. Now with Judas' Gospel we see that they planned it that way. I hate thinking that anyone would 'know' our choices before we even make them. Don't get me started on Revelations and the Apocalypse. To me they are the worst spoilers imagineable I can't get into believing that we are all destined to this certainty. What would the point of living be? It just smacks of control and manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Apr 25, 2006 15:10:23 GMT -5
Don't get me started on Revelations and the Apocalypse. To me they are the worst spoilers imagineable I can't get into believing that we are all destined to this certainty. What would the point of living be? It just smacks of control and manipulation. What an interesting perspective. Seems to me the chief reason (just going on my personal observations) people find religion soothing is exactly because it does predict the unknowable. Why else go through all the dogmatic rigmarole if not to partake in some kind of certainty, like Christ will come again and we'll all be raised corporeal to enjoy an eternal heaven on earth? Isn't certainty a form of predestination? I mean, I think the reason most people cling to their religions in old age is because they're close to death, and they want to believe the prediction that [INSERT AFTERLIFE PROMISE HERE]. It's one of the great tragedies of mythic religions (that is, organized religions with myths, characters and histories) like Christianity that they focus on the later when their messages and sensibilities would be so much better applied to the now.
|
|
lindapalomathepretender
Guest
|
Post by lindapalomathepretender on Apr 27, 2006 23:50:32 GMT -5
>>>I mean, I think the reason most people cling to their religions in old age is because they're close to death, and they want to believe the prediction that [INSERT AFTERLIFE PROMISE HERE].<<<
I hear that. I think that some people go 'to that place' any time they are scared they feel as though they are not satisfied with their choices they feel insecure they feel (insert any other 'feeling out of control' moment here...) As if turning to something that they think does have control over their lives will make everything okay. As if in those moments we gather all of the faith needed to abolish any 'sins' we have committed. I don't like that belief either. To me that says you can crap on people for the first three quarters of your life and then somehow by accepting God in that last quarter...you would recieve all of the benefits of what God has promised. Then there are those who, on their own, treated others wonderfully but never accepted Jesus as their Saviour.... and they won't get anything? I am sure that if I had a burning bush talking to me I would have nothing but faith. How is it that all of us are not afforded the luxury of witnessing a miracle that we can attribute to God? If we were to hear voices we would be considered crazy. I am not complaining...it actually gives me an excuse to be selective about what I believe and don't believe. I always come back to the fact that Donnie's choice was to save the people he loved by allowing himself to die. The avoidance of the engine was a 'miracle' and he ended up turning it down because he was shown how it would affect those around him. I don't see how anyone can believe in free will 'and' god's plan at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by johonaton on Aug 7, 2006 23:50:38 GMT -5
I just saw Donnie Darko, and it's had me thinking quite a bit. I personally think that truly "free" will goes out the window when there is some sort of paradox like the one in this movie, but it exists when things are working normally. (I'm going to ignore some of POTT here) In this case, Frank goes back, saving Donnie, which causes Frank's demise, which allows Frank to go back and Save Donnie, but at the same time Frank ensures Donnie's death, which would stop Donnie from ever killing Frank, which stops Frank from saving Donnie....and we have a paradox.
I apologize in advance that this makes it much more confusing, but it popped into my head about 5 minutes ago and I haven't quite worked it out yet.
I think that we may be dealing with more than just one tangent universe, and more than two Franks. Maybe Frank and Donnie are stuck in some sort of "Groundhog Day" scenario every time Frank saves Donnie, only to doom himself. If another tangent universe existed, the Frank that died in that one could have had contact with the living Frank to make sure that he does things differently the second time around, so the tangent universe finally loops back to the main one. Then, instead of one tangent universe looping off of our universe, we'd have 2 or more universes that account for Frank both saving and dooming himself. As for the jet engine starting the whole thing, there possibility could be an alternate universe, somehow merging with this one during the whole mess, which could allow for jet-engines to seemingly come out of nowhere, and would partially explain the red spiral on the jet engine in the beginning of the movie (which certainly wasn't on the engine of the plane at the end of the movie).
As for free will, I think it is nonexistant in the tangent universe because it loops back to an earlier point, which predefines your future. Normally, the future wouldn't be attatched to anything, meaning it would be unrestricted. In a tangent universe, the only possible future is the one where it meets back with the main universe.
|
|
|
Post by johonaton on Aug 8, 2006 0:04:46 GMT -5
aha....I thought it out some more....
Okay, I'm still going for more than one tangent universe. The start of the whole thing had to be some sort of outside influence though, in the form of a parallel universe somehow sending the engine with the "spiral" on it onto Donnie's house. If life-after-death is the case, then Frank could have been killed anyways in the main universe, possibly even sooner than in the Tangent universe, so he couldn't really save or doom himself, only change how he died.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Aug 8, 2006 9:19:31 GMT -5
I'm still going for more than one tangent universe. You may be interested in Bigboy's theory of a nearly-infinite series of tiny loops that eventually stabilize into the story we see on the screen. Look up his post and graphic interpretation.
|
|