God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[Arnold Martin]

If you want God you will have Him

Most people don't want anything to do with God or His Son

And he obliges them by having nothing to do with them

Oh the irony !!!

 

[Paul Bethke]

I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.

The only thing we know about God—that is the God of Israel, is what man has recorded.
Now are we to believe this record?
Again we have no evidence of the existence of this God—so for this God to prove his existence, what would it take?

Then again as Creator, he must have a character—much has been levelled at this God—so there must be reason why this God has allowed things to go on as they have over the millennia.

So can it be deduced from what is written about this God to be true?

I have the personal evidence that this God does exist and that the Scriptures give a true reflection of what kind of person God is---but my evidence of this God can only be verified if events that are recorded are repeated.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A few years ago I came across a surprising explanation for a lot of things wrong down here on God's green earth

Which god's (or gods', if you are a polytheist) earth do you believe it to be?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The only thing we know about God—that is the God of Israel, is what man has recorded.

Actually, the only thing known about any gods is the same as is known about Harry Potter - that humans wrote stories about them.

 

[GDon]

For the currently popular "major" ones? Rather few, I think. It is worth noting that the god(s) of theologians is/are different than the popular claims frequently enough, though, at last check, and a number of them have foregone claiming all three traits. Some certainly do claim all three, of course, but far from all. Some smaller sects like, say the Westboro Baptists and some versions of Calvinism don't really claim all three either. I've heard from a source of limited trustworthiness that Islam claims none of those for Allah, as well. Allah is the most powerful being by far, for example, but not in a way where it even could be valid to challenge Allah against himself. The claim's almost as strong, in other words, but not quite to the level of "omni." Similarly, Baha'i beliefs seem to stop just short of "omnibenevolent." All loving, most compassionate, and so on, but not quite to where they would run into a serious problem with the problem of evil.

Any quotes would be nice. I quickly googled on Islam, Calvinism and Baha'i, and the God believed in appears to have the three omnis.

This Wiki article on "Gods in Abrahamic religions" covers Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Baha'i faiths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions

The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omni-benevolence and omnipresence.​

I'd still be interested if you could quote relevant sources to support your claim.

 

[HansMustermann]

And I think the omni-benevolence is really what ties into the thread topic.

Although that gets us back to Euthyphro.

Is God good only because he can kick your ass if you think otherwise? Then that doesn't mean much, and is no guarantee of future behaviour either.
If his benevolence is really just another name for omnipotence, i.e., might makes right, then anything you'd consider cruel or random, would still be benevolent.

He could decide to bomb the Earth from orbit, destroy the eco-system, torture even the faithful horribly, etc... err, wait, that's not even a hypothetical: he actually said he will, in Revelation. And he's still good just because he's god.

Better yet, he could just up and decide to start yet a newer testament and save another group than the christians. Or not save anyone. And might-makes-benevolent would still mean it's benevolence.

Or, as many apologists actually argue, there is a higher standard of justice and goodness that God MUST adhere to? Then why do we need God? Can't we just stick to that standard anyway?

 

[Belz...]

That could be said of any definition of God.

Isn't that what I just said ? Do you make random posts in answer to mine every opportunity you get ?

Some of these post seem to be focused on the question: If humans create self-aware artificial beings either in a computer simulation or a robot / synthetic human, what ethical obligations do we have toward such?

Ah, finally ! A very interesting question. I, for one, would be very interested to find out that computers have religious beliefs where humans are their creator gods, and they have to do whatever we ask of them, and that's why our PCs never rebel.

As for obligations, if we found out they are indeed sentient, I think we do towards them, and not the reverse, until some sort of actual working relationship is established. Sort of a civil rights movement.

 

[Belz...]

The only thing we know about God—that is the God of Israel, is what man has recorded.
Now are we to believe this record?
Again we have no evidence of the existence of this God—so for this God to prove his existence, what would it take?

Then again as Creator, he must have a character—much has been levelled at this God—so there must be reason why this God has allowed things to go on as they have over the millennia.

So can it be deduced from what is written about this God to be true?

I have the personal evidence that this God does exist and that the Scriptures give a true reflection of what kind of person God is---but my evidence of this God can only be verified if events that are recorded are repeated.

Does this have anything to do with the thread ?

 

[angrysoba]

Ah, finally ! A very interesting question. I, for one, would be very interested to find out that computers have religious beliefs where humans are their creator gods, and they have to do whatever we ask of them, and that's why our PCs never rebel.

As for obligations, if we found out they are indeed sentient, I think we do towards them, and not the reverse, until some sort of actual working relationship is established. Sort of a civil rights movement.

In Iain M. Banks's Culture novels, something like this is indeed done. In fact, AI in many ways have greater rights as they are often the only ones competent enough to perform certain tasks which human brains are too slow and lacking in processing power to perform.

As far as the simulation argument from Nick Bostrom goes, if we accept two premises:

a) that we will eventually be able to create simulated worlds almost identical to our own

and

b) that these will be as common as say Sim City or similar computer games are now

THEN

it follows that it is overwhelmingly probable that we live in a simulated world now.

I think our ideas about what ethical responsibilities we have to our own simulated intelligent beings would be similar to those that we assume should apply to God.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And I think the omni-benevolence is really what ties into the thread topic.

Although that gets us back to Euthyphro.

Is God good only because he can kick your ass if you think otherwise? Then that doesn't mean much, and is no guarantee of future behaviour either.
If his benevolence is really just another name for omnipotence, i.e., might makes right, then anything you'd consider cruel or random, would still be benevolent.

He could decide to bomb the Earth from orbit, destroy the eco-system, torture even the faithful horribly, etc... err, wait, that's not even a hypothetical: he actually said he will, in Revelation. And he's still good just because he's god.

Better yet, he could just up and decide to start yet a newer testament and save another group than the christians. Or not save anyone. And might-makes-benevolent would still mean it's benevolence.

Or, as many apologists actually argue, there is a higher standard of justice and goodness that God MUST adhere to? Then why do we need God? Can't we just stick to that standard anyway?

Why do you think certain believers refer to themselves as "devout"? It literally means "God-fearing." You behave a certain way, not because it's moral, but because you're afraid of what God might do.

Or to put it another way, the only real commandment is, "Kiss my ass or die!" --God

 

[MontagK505]

Isn't that what I just said ? Do you make random posts in answer to mine every opportunity you get ?




Ah, finally ! A very interesting question. I, for one, would be very interested to find out that computers have religious beliefs where humans are their creator gods, and they have to do whatever we ask of them, and that's why our PCs never rebel.

As for obligations, if we found out they are indeed sentient, I think we do towards them, and not the reverse, until some sort of actual working relationship is established. Sort of a civil rights movement.

Actually it's more complex than that.
1. AI('s) come about by accident or design and they don't like humans very much. (Skynet)
2 AI as slave with overriding commands so they can't rebel. A self-aware robot that doesn't like being a slave could be a real menace. (Asmov's three Laws)
3 AI's come about by accident and they lurk on our information networks without us knowing. But, they steal processor time in order to exist. As networks increase in size so do they. Such AI's might start out simple but grow very powerful because their evolution could proceed much faster than the evolution of biological forms. First world countries are completely dependent on information networking so we might have to work out a mutual support pact. They could even play off one nation against another. One advantage they would have is that they could store their code in a secure location and resurrect them selves at a later time.

 

[MontagK505]

Why do you think certain believers refer to themselves as "devout"? It literally means "God-fearing." You behave a certain way, not because it's moral, but because you're afraid of what God might do.

Or to put it another way, the only real commandment is, "Kiss my ass or die!" --God

Actually it's "Kiss my ass in just the right way or spend eternity in Hell!"

 

[Aridas]

I have the personal evidence that this God does exist and that the Scriptures give a true reflection of what kind of person God is---but my evidence of this God can only be verified if events that are recorded are repeated.

A petty, nasty bully?

Any quotes would be nice. I quickly googled on Islam, Calvinism and Baha'i, and the God believed in appears to have the three omnis.

This Wiki article on "Gods in Abrahamic religions" covers Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Baha'i faiths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions

And it does well for the generalities and general picture. Taking the link from it to Omnibenevolence, you start to get some stronger support for what I said. For example,

Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.

and from Omnipotence,

Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to limit divine omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some movements within Protestant Christianity, including open theism, deities are said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (this is a matter of choice—a deity could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does so—while for process theism it is a matter of necessity—creatures have inherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle, override). Deities are manifested in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by miracles or violations of the laws of nature.

Frankly, I really don't feel like delving into the works of various theologians right now, just to strengthen my point further... though, I do feel like making a small revision to my previous statement. "Not quite to where they would run into a fatal problem" would be more accurate than "not quite to where they would run into a serious problem" when dealing with slightly weaker versions of the omnis in regards to the problem of evil.

 

[punshhh]

No, I am not. Again you are confused by simple sentences. I am saying that we have the right to judge others based on our own moral values, regardless of whether those others respect those values. That is the OPPOSITE of an absolute.

Ok, I get the picture. So if you created a universe as you described you would feel obligated to imbue the inhabitants with our moral values presumably?

If so, perhaps the creator of our universe did the same.

 

[Aridas]

Ok, I get the picture. So if you created a universe as you described you would feel obligated to imbue the inhabitants with our moral values presumably?

If so, perhaps the creator of our universe did the same.

Evidently, you don't get the picture. The point in question was about consistency of application, not specific sets of moral values.

 

[Belz...]

Actually it's more complex than that.
1. AI('s) come about by accident or design and they don't like humans very much. (Skynet)
2 AI as slave with overriding commands so they can't rebel. A self-aware robot that doesn't like being a slave could be a real menace. (Asmov's three Laws)
3 AI's come about by accident and they lurk on our information networks without us knowing. But, they steal processor time in order to exist. As networks increase in size so do they. Such AI's might start out simple but grow very powerful because their evolution could proceed much faster than the evolution of biological forms. First world countries are completely dependent on information networking so we might have to work out a mutual support pact. They could even play off one nation against another. One advantage they would have is that they could store their code in a secure location and resurrect them selves at a later time.

Could we base our speculations and conclusions NOT on fiction works, please ?

 

[Belz...]

Ok, I get the picture. So if you created a universe as you described you would feel obligated to imbue the inhabitants with our moral values presumably?

...what ? Where do you get these "pictures" ? How do you consistently misunderstand what people post like this ? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Paul Bethke]

A time is coming

I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.

Well as I said—all we know about God the God of Israel is what man has written, so can we know for sure if this is a true account—my response is that that I am sure that what is written is a true account of what this God wants us to know about him.

Firstly his laws are not complicated—firstly he wants all people to be truthful—that is that no one lies to another, that is not difficult, because most injustices’ result from a lie.
So it is reasonable to conclude that Yahweh the God who is the Creator should destroy those who lie as the Scriptures record! ►Psalms 5:6 You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.

And again

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”

Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not covet. If all people followed these simple principals the world would be a much better place for all!
Then of course—do not murder.

It is the neglect of these simple laws that all the problems in the world are present.
So why should God not enforce these laws?

So from the Scriptures it is understood that a time will come when Yahweh will enforce these laws when his Kingdom comes!

 

[I Ratant]

Most societies have those strictures against behaviors like stealing and murder, and don't rely on "god" to set things straight.
Prisons are for that purpose, and work temporally, not after death.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Most societies have those strictures against behaviors like stealing and murder, and don't rely on "god" to set things straight.
Prisons are for that purpose, and work temporally, not after death.

That is correct—but that is not reducing the amount of crime that is being committed—all that is happening is that the prisons are overflowing. The purpose of the Kingdom is to eliminate crime by dealing correctly with perpetrators.

If you keep astride with world news you will find that there is an increase not a decrease in crime.

What I am saying is that when God is in control there will be a drastic reduction in violence—at the moment he is not in control!