A.I. proves God exists...

[Sarkus]

Just on the T=0 or even -1 and before, Roger Penrose developed a theory called CCC which predicted what he called "Hawking points" from a previous aeon. Its a cyclical model and is pretty out there but it is at least an attempt to look beyond the BB.
The claims were not well received from memory but he may give the community a shove to push boundaries back.

Imagine seeing a photograph showing some chalk lines on a wall. This is T=0.
Now imagine someone has said "well, if someone was drawing on that wall at T<0, we'd expect to see some lines." Does the photograph prove the theory? Or does it merely not rule it out?
And if the photo didn't show lines, would that rule out the idea of someone drawing, when they could have been drawing on the wall around the corner instead?
And if someone else says "yes, but if there was a fight with a chalk-wielding monster, we might expect to see some lines on the wall!". Does the photograph prove/disprove this theory?

This is the limit of physics, at least as far as I understand it: we can know the state at T=0 if we can measure/observe it (i.e. the photo), but how that state came to be can at best be conceptualised, and even supported with maths, and maybe some theories (e.g. if this caused it, we'd expect to see that in a later photo). But none of that can conclusively show what the state was pre T=0.

Also bear in mind that what we consider to be the current T=0 may not actually be the absolute T=0, but rather just the T=0 of current theory/models. When talking about scientific knowledge being limited to T>=0, this is in reference to the absolute T=0, not merely that of current theory, given that our scientific understanding does evolve over time. I mean, T=0 has been pushed back from a few thousand years to the 13.8bn years ago that it sits at today. So it would be foolish to limit science to merely a current estimate rather than to the absolute principle.

 

[TheVat]

While theology/eschatology hasn't much piqued my interest, the intersection with limits of science and cosmology has, off and on, since college phil of sci courses. Some SF writers have ventured into those waters, sometimes to test out the notion of limits - one device that seems pertinent here is the human/ET encounter where the ET is far beyond us (think Clarke's "indistinguishable from magic" ), and is somehow able to weather a Big Crunch or bounce by forming a small impervious bubble, and thus have an actual eyewitness record of processes that to us seem forever inaccessible. It seems possible in principle that we could have such an encounter and experience a collision of Gould's magisteria. And therefore it could, in principle , overthrow all prior assessments of the p of such an encounter.

In some ways this ties in with the hypothesis that a sentient lifeform, given sufficient time and ducking species self-destruction, itself becomes godlike. IIRC there's even a theory that any sense of a God is really the sense of ourselves at some omega point where pesky problems like crunches or heat deaths are solved as routinely as changing a flat tire.

 

[DaveC426913]

While theology/eschatology hasn't much piqued my interest, the intersection with limits of science and cosmology has, off and on, since college phil of sci courses. Some SF writers have ventured into those waters, sometimes to test out the notion of limits - one device that seems pertinent here is the human/ET encounter where the ET is far beyond us (think Clarke's "indistinguishable from magic" ), and is somehow able to weather a Big Crunch or bounce by forming a small impervious bubble, and thus have an actual eyewitness record of processes that to us seem forever inaccessible. It seems possible in principle that we could have such an encounter and experience a collision of Gould's magisteria. And therefore it could, in principle , overthrow all prior assessments of the p of such an encounter.

In some ways this ties in with the hypothesis that a sentient lifeform, given sufficient time and ducking species self-destruction, itself becomes godlike. IIRC there's even a theory that any sense of a God is really the sense of ourselves at some omega point where pesky problems like crunches or heat deaths are solved as routinely as changing a flat tire.

Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"

 

[TheVat]

Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero"

Will check it out! Tak!

 

[parmalee]

In some ways this ties in with the hypothesis that a sentient lifeform, given sufficient time and ducking species self-destruction, itself becomes godlike. IIRC there's even a theory that any sense of a God is really the sense of ourselves at some omega point where pesky problems like crunches or heat deaths are solved as routinely as changing a flat tire.

Somewhat tangential, but long ago I formulated a thesis that the Gospel of Thomas, which appears somewhat fragmented and slap dash on cursory review, is simply misordered and when sequenced correctly provides a thorough and comprehensive soteriological "program", so to speak. I then set about ordering it correctly, providing any and all seekers with the keys to salvation.

Of course, the sense of "salvation" here was heavily informed by Hans Jonas's reading of the Gnostic Gospels, which in turn was informed by his early studies with Heidegger, so it was all a bit... screwy and perhaps "inverted" as compared with more conventional understandings of such--this was pre-Sein und Zeit, so Dostoevsky, Saint John of the Cross, and even the Dasein of chairs and suchlike still factored prominently.

 

[TheVat]

and even the Dasein of chairs and suchlike

I thought Heidegger's Dasein only applied to sentient beings like us. (Also a movie with Peter Sellers as a gardener)(Sorry)

The rest was well outside my areas of knowledge, though I now know what soteriological means and spent a few minutes learning about the Nag Hammadi texts. So now marginally less stupid on theological topics. Thank you.

 

[Pinball1970]

Heidegger's Dasein only applied to sentient beings like

I only know him from Monty Python, a "boozy beggar."

 

[foghorn]

Pope Francis 2014
“[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being.“

What are these “internal laws” that this god gave to each one, so that they could develop to their fullness of being?
Were these laws guiding or controlling processes. Intelligent design?

 

[James R]

DaveC:

Again: deer can't understand our intentions. They may think us evil - even though we want what we think is best for them (because we love them).

I think the whole deer analogy is flawed. As I said earlier, we humans didn't set up the system that the deer exist in. We didn't create them. We didn't set them up to suffer. We might be in a position to mitigate their suffering, to some extent, and we can consider the morality of various actions we might take that affect deer.

In contrast, religious Christians (in particular), tell us that God did set up the entire system. He created the world, the deer, human beings and everything else. A lot of them say, in addition, that God is all-seeing and all-knowing, so he created the world knowing that it would be full of pain and suffering. He is certainly alleged to be in a position to utterly remove all that pain and suffering. Indeed, he could have chosen not to create any of, in the first place.

I think that nothing prevents us from considering the morality of this God that knowingly set up the system to include unnecessary pain and suffering, while being fully able yet apparently unwilling to set it up in such a way as to maximise flourishing, happiness and all that good stuff.

A loving God may consider our existence - including free will - to be the ultimate act of love.

The usual premise we get from religious Christians is that all suffering is our fault. But it is obvious, is it not, that much suffering has nothing to do with any acts of human will. Ancient Romans didn't cause Vesuvius to erupt and bury Pompeii. They can hardly be blamed for the immense loss of life that event caused. But God - who set up the whole system knowing how things would go - can be.

I put this back on you. You said biomes "did just fine" for 2.5 billion years.
What do you mean by "fine"? I assume you mean "existed". Which is good for the biome, right?

I mean that life as a whole continued to exist and evolve. Evolution has no morality or teleology. It just does what it does, mindlessly. It's amoral in itself.

On the other hand, if some Guy set up the system, inventing the whole struggle for existence, including all its mass extinction events and regular day-to-day suffering and death, knowing full well how the thing would play out, that's not amoral. It's immoral.

So, by your own assignation of god/bad, extincton of that biome would be bad.

Like I said, I think that evolution is amoral. It's neither good nor bad. It's just what happens.

Would human extinction be bad for us, from our point of view? No doubt we would think so. But evolution doesn't care about what we think or how we feel about it.

Again, in contrast, the Christians tell us that their god does care about our existence and how we feel during it. But this seems quite inconsistent with a lot of things we observe about it.

It is simply a spurious example of a reason why God might want to us to through this mortality - because we become God.

I don't think the bible says anything about us becoming gods.

Are you suggesting that dinosaurs might have the capacity to to understand moral actions from immoral actions? (Not figurately, I mean literally).

I don't know. Maybe some of them had the capacity. Mind you, they generally had a much smaller brain-to-body mass ratio that human beings and at least some other modern animals have.

Moral for humans.

There is only "moral for humans". We are the ones who are discussing morality.

It seems like you are suggesting that the God who set up the system operates according to an entirely alien and different "morality" of his own, while simultaneously making proclamations about the morality that we humans are supposed to follow.

Why would a loving God have such a double-standard? Why would he set up one set of rules for himself and an entirely different and incompatible set of rules for human beings?

Why would he tell us "Thou shalt do X and thou shalt not do Y", if it's just fine by him for him to do Y and not do X? That God would be a complete hypocrite, not a loving god.

I posit (above) that an ostensible creator of the universe does is beyond our ability to judge.

I completely disagree with you. I think it is our duty to judge any proposed Creator of All Things. If we find him morally wanting, we are morally obliged to refuse to worship him.

Remember, too: this god is supposed to have created us in his own image. Which another reason why one-rule-for-me-different-rule-for-you makes no sense.

We would need to know the facts, and we don't.

It would be immoral of the god not to make important facts accessible to us, especially when it comes to moral matters.

What if it isn't arbitrary or useless?

If you want to make the argument that all pain and suffering has a purpose, please make it. There are a lot of things I think you'll have trouble justifying. And it's not like this supposedly loving God has given us adequate justification for any of it.

I'm simply suggesting a fanciful way God might have motive and action that we can;t possibly understand that are - ultimately - in our best interst.

Like what, for instance? I mean, it's all well and good to say - as you have been, repeatedly - that maybe God works in mysterious ways so that things will all turn out for the best in the end (which is when, by the way?), but it's just talk. It seems to me that you're grasping at imaginary straws, in an evidentiary vacuum.

(I appreciate that you don't believe in the God yourself, so talk of evidence is kind of beside the point in what seems to be a philosophical argument. But I'm not sure that you can even make a strong philosophical argument for the Christian god to be a loving god. Not your fault, of course. Many great thinkers have also tried and failed, before you.)

A development manager runs a project that takes 13.7 weeks to complete. An unskilled temp is hired on day 13.6, sees one screen of code and criticizes how the project is going. Is the temp's take on the project equal to let alone superior to the project manager's? Is the temp is any position to argue it's all wrong?

If the company applies electric shocks daily to the temp as a condition of his employment, I think the temp is probably in a good position to conclude that the project is not one that is being implemented by a "loving" CEO.

You would have to know their motives to make such an assessment.

I'm a consequentialist, to a large degree, when it comes to morals. Motives aren't as important as outcomes, as far as I am concerned.

Because the alternatives are a zoo or non-existence?

Aren't we already in God's "zoo"? It's not like we're free to leave the universe if we choose.

God is the zookeeper who determines the conditions under which the animals live. We're the animals.

As for non-existence, if God had the option to create beings who suffer, who's to say that's better than not creating those beings in the first place?

Yes. I think your interpretation of a loving god is simplistic.

Not according to my understanding of what "loving" entails.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

A parallel ... simplicism ... for believers might be something like "You expect the human eye to just spontaneous develop, perfectly working from pure chance alone?? Poppycock!"

They dismiss it by simplifying to an absurd cartoon of the real story. I see that to be what you are doing.

Tell me what the real story would be, then, in which God comes out as a loving guy.

While you're at it, tell me why the bible - God's book - doesn't tell the real story.

Is it evil for conservationists to cull deer populations?

Did conservationists create deer?

OK, what if they didn't?
What if, instead, they let the deer overrun the habitat and extinct themselves via disease and starvation?
So, not evil?

Do the conservationists have a duty of care towards the deer?

Does God have a duty of care towards human beings?

Are the duties different in the two cases, or the same?

Where do the duties come from (if they are there)?

"Loving" does not mean "zoo".

How are human beings not in God's zoo?

Part of normal life is competition, striving, and yes, death.

Who set up the system? The person who set it up would be the responsible party, would they not?

Another, softer take: does a parent to lets their kid be stabbed with a vaccination needle (the big one , with all the needles at once) get classified as "evil" because he hurt (or let be hurt) the child? The child cries. The parent was responsible. So, is the parent evil? Must the parent let the child go unvaccinated in order to qualify as "all-loving"?

Did the parent create the measles virus along with the vaccination needle?

Seems to me that the parent is doing the best they can for their child, in the circumstances. God, on the other hand, could have chosen not to inflict measles on children in the first place.

There is a story out there (actually, many) where an artificial mind or alien is programmed to love and care for a bunch of humans. It takes its programming literally, and protects them from all harm. Ultimately, in various versions, the humans are prisoners in padded cells and are stopped from any activity that might possibly cause a sprained wrist, etc. They prefer to off themselves rather than live in that hell.

The alien/AI obviously failed to protect the bunch of humans from significant psychological harm.

Not an all-loving alien, then, I would say.

I guess I am asserting that the optimum state for humans includes need, pursuit, suffering and death. Otherwise we stop being human.

I expect that most humans will disagree with you that suffering and death are optimal states they must be in to make them happy and fulfilled.

What is good and bad for humans, not for God.

You seem to be saying that "good for God" is just whatever God wants. You're exempting the god from moral considerations.

Is there any standard of morality that this God of yours has to answer to?

Erroneous application. A double standard only apples to equals.

The justification given by slave owners and traders throughout history. Not a version of morality I could ever endorse.

I am a fresh-faced paid intern. I don't get paid for my lunch hour.
You are a VP, paid in six figures, on-call ngoht and weekends, yet you don't clock out for your lunch.
Double standard? No. We are not the same.

Now you seem to be trying to justify enormous disparities in wealth. One morality for the CEOs; a different one for their indentured labourers. That's very Capitalist of you.

Once again, I find the argument that "a loving God seems illogical or paradoxical" is not an argument of its objective existence. We don't get to choose.

The argument is not against the existence of a God. That's a separate argument. The argument is that the idea of an all-loving God is incompatible with the world we find ourselves in, if it was created and is controlled by said God.

Note that "morally questionable" does not means "immoral"; it means "we question it because we don't know the whole picture".

You have yet to propose a "whole picture" that could possibly justify all the suffering and pain we see in the world, without sounding absurd or ad hoc or special pleading.

I don't find it impossible that an arbitrarily powerful entity chooses creation over oblivion. He deliberately creates (say) a universe. Then he deliberately creates life in it. But they are just puppets on his strings. So he grants them free will.

How does giving his puppets "free will" stop them from being puppets on his strings?

To what extent are they "free" from what the God wants for/of them?

Are they free to leave the double-standard system that the God set up, if they choose?

In essence, he takes a piece of his godliness and imbues humans with it - the property of agency.

Limited agency, compared to the god.

It is uselss if he just continues to pull their strings. He may be able to but choose not to.

Or, rather, the extent to which he pulls strings is determined by his whim of the moment, rather than any morality that the puppets understand.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

He has given us the "gift" of existence over non-existence.

How is an existence full of unnecessary pain and suffering a "gift"?

Sure, life is not all bad. But the God could have chosen not to make any of it bad. But he didn't, apparently.

Again, this is not an argument for his non-existence. It is an argument that shows that he's not all Loving or all Good.

An all-powerful God cannot get creative, curious or lonely. He satisfies all his own needs internally, therefore need do nothing. The logical outcome is an entity that hovers in the middle of non-space, with no firmament, no light, doing nothing but amusing himself with his own thoughts. Forever.

I agree. It's a big problem for the idea of an all-powerful God. Why would such a God ever want anything? Why would such a God ever feel a need to do anything?

Exactly. But that's your logic, based on your interpretation of what believers think all-loving means.

What do you think believers think all-loving means, then?

What do you think it would mean for a God to be all-loving?

They are not here to defend or elucidate the possible nuances of their beliefs, so from where I stand this is hearsay.

This is a discussion between two atheists, obviously. You're trying to put a plausible case on behalf of the believer who asserts that their God is all-loving. I'm trying to point out flaws in your arguments.

It might be more interesting to discuss the topic with people who actually hold the position we're debating. Nevertheless, it's interesting to toss the idea around, while there aren't any believers here stepping up to the plate.

No. They do not know what is best for them. They do not know about overpopulation, starvation, and they do not know about controlled breeding. We must make that decision for them. We are put in that position because we want them to suffer the least.

The example is flawed. We didn't set up the system in which they became capable of suffering in the first place. But to the extent to which we were instrumental in creating conditions in which deer suffer, we have a moral duty to alleviate or eliminate that suffering as best we can.

In contrast, we find ourselves in a world that believers tell us that their God deliberately created, complete with suffering and the capacity of humans (and deer) to consciously experience that suffering. Since that God is entirely responsible for his Creation, it follows that he has a moral duty to alleviate or eliminate the suffering he caused to occur. Unless you want to argue that it's one standard for the CEO and a different one for the assembly-line workers, that is.

A zoo, then.

I don't think your "zoo" analogy works, for reasons I gave above.

Pretty sure humans would go insane in a zoo, given enough time and stagnation.

I am confident that in a society with no need or struggle or pain or suffering, humans would still find plenty of ways to amuse themselves.

The only reason I am playing Devil's Advocate is because I think "I don't understand the motives of an all-loving God" is a fallacy of "argument by incredulity", which we disallow believers to invoke.

It's more the case that I don't think there are any plausible motives for pain and suffering and all that available for any all-loving God could have.

Can we agree "all-loving" makes as much sense as able to create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?

Given the world we live in, I think we can agree on that. It's kind of the point I've been making all along. My argument all along has been about the inconsistency between the observed reality and the hypothesised entity.

I mean, if the intent is to "gift" humans with a sliver of his agency (to see and do by intent rather than programming or puppet string) then it follows that he cannot then constrain their lives so they never face danger/change/adversity.

Why not? We're already constrained in many ways. We can't flap our arms and fly, much as we might like to.

We would lie around and eat and sleep and bonk, forever. Whatever that might be, it is not what humans are.

There are plenty of other enjoyable things we can do without suffering or inflicting suffering on other sentient beings.

[Death is] is simply the ultimate form of suffering. Once you head down the slippery slope of "do no harm at all", you inevitably arrive at "abolish death".

Exactly. Why would any all-loving God set up a system in which every living thing experiences the ultimate form of suffering?

 

[Sarkus]

I don't think the bible says anything about us becoming gods.

There are several mentions of us participating in the divine nature. For example:

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." 2 Peter 1:4

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You;
that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:20-21

While the classical theist would not take these to mean "becoming gods/God" (they distinguish between a union with God and having the identity of God), there are some religions/sects that would interpret these (and other passages) as being with regard us "becoming" God/gods.

 

[Sarkus]

Exactly. But that's your logic, based on your interpretation of what believers think all-loving means.

I think this gets to one of the difficulties with discussions like this: people create their own versions of a deity that don't correspond with that of the religion(s) or believer(s) they're ostensibly attacking. It's all well and good having arguments for not believing in a God that you have conceived of, but unless it is the same conception as that held by believers, those arguments are of little practical value.
One needs to look behind the terms used and try to understand, as you say, what those terms mean to the people one is arguing against.

And it get's worse, unfortunately:

It [death] is simply the ultimate form of suffering. Once you head down the slippery slope of "do no harm at all", you inevitably arrive at "abolish death".

(The suffering from death is not necessarily the dead; it certainly affects the living).

To which another's response to the first part was:

Exactly. Why would any all-loving God set up a system in which every living thing experiences the ultimate form of suffering?

So here we have one person's misconception battling another person's misconception.
Great, you can both agree that your misconceptions lead to the same conclusion... but how is it relevant?

To wit: death is not the "ultimate form of suffering" to any of the mainstream religions, afaik. Most would agree it is or involves suffering - to the self or to those left behind - but certainly not the "ultimate form of".
And all suffering involved with death, at least to those who believe in some form of afterlife, generally pales in comparison to the ultimate rewards of participating in God, or to breaking the cycle of birth/rebirth and reaching nirvana etc. To those few religions and philosophies that don't believe in the afterlife, death is a finality, not a suffering.

Anyhoo - i think it boils down to people coming up with convincing arguments and discussions as to why people shouldn't believe in a God that none of the major religions actually believe in. All rather pointless unless one engages with those conceptions of God/gods that people actually believe in. But that's just me.

 

[exchemist]

I think this gets to one of the difficulties with discussions like this: people create their own versions of a deity that don't correspond with that of the religion(s) or believer(s) they're ostensibly attacking. It's all well and good having arguments for not believing in a God that you have conceived of, but unless it is the same conception as that held by believers, those arguments are of little practical value.
One needs to look behind the terms used and try to understand, as you say, what those terms mean to the people one is arguing against.

And it get's worse, unfortunately:

To which another's response to the first part was:

So here we have one person's misconception battling another person's misconception.
Great, you can both agree that your misconceptions lead to the same conclusion... but how is it relevant?

To wit: death is not the "ultimate form of suffering" to any of the mainstream religions, afaik. Most would agree it is or involves suffering - to the self or to those left behind - but certainly not the "ultimate form of".
And all suffering involved with death, at least to those who believe in some form of afterlife, generally pales in comparison to the ultimate rewards of participating in God, or to breaking the cycle of birth/rebirth and reaching nirvana etc. To those few religions and philosophies that don't believe in the afterlife, death is a finality, not a suffering.

Anyhoo - i think it boils down to people coming up with convincing arguments and discussions as to why people shouldn't believe in a God that none of the major religions actually believe in. All rather pointless unless one engages with those conceptions of God/gods that people actually believe in. But that's just me.

Yes, it’s also at variance with just about everyone’s recognition that death marks the end of suffering, for many people. It is a release, more often than not. We speak of them being “at peace”. That’s also why we “put down” animals in a state of suffering. Not to mention why people commit suicide.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC:

I think the whole deer analogy is flawed. As I said earlier, we humans didn't set up the system that the deer exist in. We didn't create them. We didn't set them up to suffer. We might be in a position to mitigate their suffering, to some extent, and we can consider the morality of various actions we might take that affect deer.

I think you are taking the analogy too far.

In contrast, religious Christians (in particular), tell us that God did set up the entire system. He created the world, the deer, human beings and everything else. A lot of them say, in addition, that God is all-seeing and all-knowing, so he created the world knowing that it would be full of pain and suffering. He is certainly alleged to be in a position to utterly remove all that pain and suffering.

And replace it with what?

Lying around in an infinite park of grass and shade trees, eating grapes (though not for hunger's sake) and extolling the wonders of God for all eternity?
Ask your friends f any of them like that version of heaven.

Indeed, he could have chosen not to create any of, in the first place.

Yes. Is that a valid option for "loving". It seems degenerate to me.

I think that nothing prevents us from considering the morality of this God that knowingly set up the system to include unnecessary pain and suffering, while being fully able yet apparently unwilling to set it up in such a way as to maximise flourishing, happiness and all that good stuff.

I see you've included the word 'unnecessary'. Does it follow that you grant necessary suffering?

How do you, or anyone, determie what is necessary from unecessary?

Is the toddler able to judge the morality of the parent when it gets jabbed with a needle?

The usual premise we get from religious Christians is that all suffering is our fault. But it is obvious, is it not, that much suffering has nothing to do with any acts of human will. Ancient Romans didn't cause Vesuvius to erupt and bury Pompeii. They can hardly be blamed for the immense loss of life that event caused. But God - who set up the whole system knowing how things would go - can be.

Sure. The Christian ide of fault and guilt is kind of a separate issue though, is it not?

I mean that life as a whole continued to exist and evolve. Evolution has no morality or teleology. It just does what it does, mindlessly. It's amoral in itself.

Agree.

On the other hand, if some Guy set up the system, inventing the whole struggle for existence, including all its mass extinction events and regular day-to-day suffering and death, knowing full well how the thing would play out, that's not amoral. It's immoral.

I do not see it that way. Since the alternatives are zoo or oblivion.

Like I said, I think that evolution is amoral. It's neither good nor bad. It's just what happens.

Sure.

Would human extinction be bad for us, from our point of view? No doubt we would think so. But evolution doesn't care about what we think or how we feel about it.

And yet, you don't consider it immoral. So, it is possible for bad things to happens to humans without it being immoral.

Again, in contrast, the Christians tell us that their god does care about our existence and how we feel during it. But this seems quite inconsistent with a lot of things we observe about it.

Only if we are a toddler getting stuck with a needle we don't understand. Which we are.

I don't think the bible says anything about us becoming gods.

1. Bible seems specious. I thought we were just talking about a generic God.
2. More to the point: are you suggesting if it isn't mentioned in the Bible it's not a valid argument? That's a very different argument. That would be argung 'is the Bible the whole and complete truth'?

I don't know. Maybe some of the [dinosaurs] had the capacity [for moral thought].

Really? You are not expecting me to take you seriously are you?

If you expect that to be taken seriously, I would be forced to then question if you understand the concept of morality. Or basic paleobiology.

I'm going to assume you are not being serious.

There is only "moral for humans". We are the ones who are discussing morality.

I'm saying the actions of a God who created everything are not immoral.

It seems like you are suggesting that the God who set up the system operates according to an entirely alien and different "morality" of his own,

No. You just said it yourself: 'There is only "moral for humans"'. i.e there is no moral for Gods.

while simultaneously making proclamations about the morality that we humans are supposed to follow.

Why would a loving God have such a double-standard? Why would he set up one set of rules for himself and an entirely different and incompatible set of rules for human beings?

Not a double standard. Because: not a standard.
Imagine offering a herd of deer in a zoo chance to work a job and pay taxes. No? Is that a double standard that they can't get jobs?

Why would he tell us "Thou shalt do X and thou shalt not do Y", if it's just fine by him for him to do Y and not do X? That God would be a complete hypocrite, not a loving god.

Hypocrite has same issue as double standard. Not equals.

Does the toddler get to call the parent a hypocrite for going to the store alone?

Double standard apply to entities with equitable capabilities.

(cont'd)

 

[DaveC426913]

I completely disagree with you. I think it is our duty to judge any proposed Creator of All Things. If we find him morally wanting, we are morally obliged to refuse to worship him.

Iff we are capable of understanding the facts. We can't conceive of eternity, or infinte space or any number other tings a God may have to contend with.

Remember, too: this god is supposed to have created us in his own image. Which another reason why one-rule-for-me-different-rule-for-you makes no sense.

You're adding yet another constraint that wasn't in the original argument. But sure.

"in his own image" is almost certainly not literal. For all we know, it refers specifically to granting us agency - i.e. "Free will".

It would be immoral of the god not to make important facts accessible to us, especially when it comes to moral matters.

False. I am not obliged to show my toddler pictures of children who ides of polio. It is part of my living duty to protect them from scary things.

If you want to make the argument that all pain and suffering has a purpose, please make it.

No. I am arguing that that3 may be true. And that you are presumptuous to think you have enough knowledge to pass a judgement.

There are a lot of things I think you'll have trouble justifying.

Of course. I am not privy to etenity and infinite space.

But I ackowledge that there are clearly things we humans do not know. And you should too.

I am reminded of times in my youth, when the world seemed so black and white and I thought I knew everything there was to know and could not conceive of any flaw in my judgement of the world. Them I grew up and now find it quaint how small my world was. I was naive to think I could judge the world.

I see you making the same mistake here.

Like what, for instance? I mean, it's all well and good to say - as you have been, repeatedly - that maybe God works in mysterious ways so that things will all turn out for the best in the end (which is when, by the way?), but it's just talk. It seems to me that you're grasping at imaginary straws, in an evidentiary vacuum.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

We are "just talking" here, are we not?

(I appreciate that you don't believe in the God yourself, so talk of evidence is kind of beside the point in what seems to be a philosophical argument.

Thank you for that. I was about to say exactly this.

But I'm not sure that you can even make a strong philosophical argument for the Christian god to be a loving god. Not your fault, of course. Many great thinkers have also tried and failed, before you.)

It sounds like you're trying pass verdict on the discussion in the middle of the discussion. Trying to cut it off at the pass, as it were.

a la: "Your honour. Despite the prosecution having a witness that puts my client standing over the dead body with the smoking gun his hand, they have not been able to make their case satisfactorily. I request the case be dismissed."

If the company applies electric shocks daily to the temp as a condition of his employment, I think the temp is probably in a good position to conclude that the project is not one that is being implemented by a "loving" CEO.

Well since the alternative is that the temp is unalived, maybe a little discomfort is not so bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

Now you seem to be trying to justify enormous disparities in wealth. One morality for the CEOs; a different one for their indentured labourers. That's very Capitalist of you.

Oh come on! Are you being deliberately obtuse to miss the gist of an analogy?

Double standard and hypocrisy apply to entities of equal capacity.

OK, you need a disparity that doesn't trigger your capitalism or slave triggers?

Why don't we offer jobs to fish? Fish deserve disposal income too, don't they? Is that a double standard? Is that hypocrisy?




I'll follow up when I'm less irritated.

 

[DaveC426913]

Upon reflection, I feel that this discussion is intractible.

If our criteria for God's behaviour is based on the absoluteness of some unnamed believers' accounts of God's all-lovingness, then those believers are the ones to defend themselves.

James R, your account of what someone else says is hearsay. It's no different than someone quoting a chatbot or a Google hit.
"Don't ask me. I'm just recounting what the other guy said." Write4U used that excuse extensively, and we condemned him for it. This thread is guilty of that very offense.

 

[foghorn]

Hearsay, "well yeah, I got it from this book."

The Bible has Jesus saying…
“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
John 6:38

And that leads to what Jesus says about god’s love for people. God's Love for Mankind.

 

[James R]

Upon reflection, I feel that this discussion is intractible.

If our criteria for God's behaviour is based on the absoluteness of some unnamed believers' accounts of God's all-lovingness, then those believers are the ones to defend themselves.

I agree that could be a more productive conversation. After all, believers in gods believe a wide variety of different things. Often it becomes a matter of drilling down into the specific beliefs of the individual. Generalising can be tricky, although I do think that there are broad similarities in the beliefs of many followers of particular religions.

James R, your account of what someone else says is hearsay.

This is not a court of law. It's a discussion forum. You don't have to believe me when I report things I've heard or read from believers in my own experience, of course. In fact, I invite you to do your own research on my claims.

It's no different than someone quoting a chatbot or a Google hit.

I think that what believers directly say and write about their beliefs is more likely to be reliable than what a chatbot says about what believers say or write. It's one step less removed from the source.

But, sure. If you want to stipulate that you're not going to believe anything but first-hand evidence from the horse's mouth itself, so to speak, that's your prerogative.

I am interested in why you would think I'm just making stuff up, though. Don't you trust me to report correctly what I have heard from various believers?

Seems like you're taking skepticism to an extreme.

I might add the obvious point that believers who are visiting sciforums are more than welcome - in fact, they are invited - to chime it at any time in this discussion and give us atheists the benefit of first-hand accounts about what they believe and why.

"Don't ask me. I'm just recounting what the other guy said." Write4U used that excuse extensively, and we condemned him for it. This thread is guilty of that very offense.

I don't think it's fair of you to lump me in with Write4U. Disappointing that you want to resort to that, I must say.

Oh well. I think we're probably done here. You sound a bit upset.