God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[Belz...]

Just trying to tease out what you do actually want to talk about.

Tease out ? Read the *********** OP.

An observation I would make is that each of us is in a way a creator god to the cells of our own body.

No.

I already addressed this.

The thread is about beliefs, not god per se. It doesn't matter if he exists or not.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Bingo. That's what gets my goat about lemmings who, I'm left with the impression, essentially think that THEIR problems are the only ones that matter, and the farther in time and space you get, the better things were. Or at least it can't possibly be any worse.

Because that seems to me like invariably the problem, when you get to talk to one. Their little annoyances and insecurities trump everything from tribal endemic warfare to the Black Death, so the world is going downhill, and oh God, the apocalypse must be coming any day soon because God wouldn't let things get even more horrible. Derp.

Oh yeah? Well if things were so much worse 1,000 years ago, then how come the 24-hour news networks weren't reporting on it back then? Explain that, hot shot.

 

[tsig]

Oh yeah? Well if things were so much worse 1,000 years ago, then how come the 24-hour news networks weren't reporting on it back then? Explain that, hot shot.

Not only that, why would we need a 24 hour news channel if more bad stuff wasn't happening?

 

[nelsondogg]

...
The entire purpose of creation is to advance this family unity---the main reason for judgement is against all that destroys the family.

The purpose of a black hole somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy is to advance family unity?

 

[Correa Neto]

I'll make it simple. Not kind, rather harsh actually, but simple.

IF there is a creator and IF this creator is YHWH, I give him the finger. I see no reason why I should consider such a monster as a source of morality just because it has power. I see no reason to pledge complete submission to his rules. I don't care if his own rules and codes are not equal to mine's. Morality is relative and plastic in many aspects. Using my moral standards he's a vicious figure. I do not consider any human dictator as being worthy of respect, admiration, as a source of morality. The same is valid for the YHWH IF he exists. Oh, and yes, I lived under a dictatorship.

So, *BLEEEP* you YHWH. Every little chance I'll have to annoy you, to disturb you, I shall use to sabbottage you rule. Yes, I could try to hide it all from you. But since you are omni, going to the church, following your rules is useless since you know I do not actually respect and love you. So, since its hellfire and non-existence for me anyway (and you knew it since before making me), I'll go down in flames giving you the finger and also trying to move as many people away from you as I can.

Oh, and if YHWH is real, I'm pretty sure I'll meet a lot of "faithfull" people down there in hell and I will laugh at them.

Sympathy for the devil.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh yeah? Well if things were so much worse 1,000 years ago, then how come the 24-hour news networks weren't reporting on it back then? Explain that, hot shot.

Heh.

It's not just whether it's reported or not. It's that when you confront some people about it, and actually offer some concrete example, you actually see them rationalizing about how their problems are still worse than the example.

The first time I came into contact with the phenomenon, I don't remember exactly what example I used, but I think it had something to do with the burning of the conversos in Spain or such. At any rate, something up there, as horrors go, because I like to make the case rather clearly. You'd think that would make a pretty clear case that, yeah, today you don't have to live in fear of THAT horror. And I get an answer like, "Yeah, well, but nowadays you could get fired, and not find a job, and..." And my brain goes, "*fzzt* Wait, WHAT? Did that guy just argue that unemployment in a fairly left wing European country is worse than being tortured for months and then burned alive?"

 

[Belz...]

Paul,

Now that the derail is over, could you answer my question:

Why does the "mere fact that [god] is Creator qualify him to make laws that we creatures must abide by" ?

 

[MontagK505]

Paul,

Now that the derail is over, could you answer my question:

Why does the "mere fact that [god] is Creator qualify him to make laws that we creatures must abide by" ?

My opinion, He's the master programmer, his code is by definition LAW.
By some coincidence I was watching a Disney computer animation the other night, and it occurred to me what if the CGI characters I'm watching were self-aware? What would they think of the songs they were made to sing and the actions they were made to do? Did Elsa really like singing "Let It Go"? Did that clueless snowman really enjoy singing about the joy's of summer? Or did he feel rather stupid? They have no apparent will of their own, but does that prove they have no self awareness? Do you think any of these questions are related to the issue in the OP?

 

[Belz...]

My opinion, He's the master programmer, his code is by definition LAW.

Only if the universe runs on a script, in which case the whole concept of morality is worthless, since all that happens is predetermined.

They have no apparent will of their own, but does that prove they have no self awareness?

If they have awareness, is it part of the LAW also ? Or are only their visible actions scripted ? That doesn't seem logical to me. And if our thoughts are scripted also, then nothing we do can ever be immoral.

 

[Giordano]

Brave words—but it does illustrate that people no matter what they are told will remain stubborn—this is illustrated in the Scriptures.
Rev 16:10,11 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

Again, this appears to be a derail from the question in the OP: does a creator have the right to define morality? Your quote appears to cite a quote in a specific religious book, and is not directly related (as I see it) to the general point of this thread. In fact, the thread would appear to apply to any god creator, not the specific one associated with the quote you cite.

 

[MontagK505]

Only if the universe runs on a script, in which case the whole concept of morality is worthless, since all that happens is predetermined.

Yes, but a sufficiently complex script could have the appearance (to us) of not being predetermined. That would mean our free will and the attendant moral choices are actually an illusion. Consider our CGI characters raised up another level where they think they have free will, but we know they don't.

If they have awareness, is it part of the LAW also ? Or are only their visible actions scripted ? That doesn't seem logical to me. And if our thoughts are scripted also, then nothing we do can ever be immoral.

Welcome to Calvinism 101.

 

[punshhh]

Tease out ? Read the *********** OP.

Forgive me, I am not familiar with the topic. Is the question, "does a creator have the right to define morality?" As pointed out by Giordano?

No.

Don't be so hasty.

The thread is about beliefs, not god per se. It doesn't matter if he exists or not.

Then it is anthropology. Making the speculation about AI meaningless.

 

[punshhh]

Only if the universe runs on a script, in which case the whole concept of morality is worthless, since all that happens is predetermined.

Not at all, you need to expand your concepts a little. It may be a more subtle/complex scripted system, with only the surface, or phenomenal world that we are aware of appearing undetermined.

If they have awareness, is it part of the LAW also ? Or are only their visible actions scripted ? That doesn't seem logical to me. And if our thoughts are scripted also, then nothing we do can ever be immoral.

I suggest you start developing concepts for considering underlying realities far more complex (or multidimensional) than the (possibly) simple/primitive world we are aware of (find ourselves in).

 

[Belz...]

Forgive me, I am not familiar with the topic.

Just READ the damned OP, Punshhh. It's that easy.

Don't be so hasty.

Don't be so irrelevant.

Not at all, you need to expand your concepts a little. It may be a more subtle/complex scripted system, with only the surface, or phenomenal world that we are aware of appearing undetermined.

Again all you are doing is showing how confused you are. I was answering a specific scenario. Now you say "not at all", and then assuming a different scenario. You are hopeless.

I suggest you start developing concepts for considering underlying realities far more complex (or multidimensional) than the (possibly) simple/primitive world we are aware of (find ourselves in).

Your suggestion that I make **** up is noted and ignored.

 

[Manopolus]

God is the supreme being. He isn't the arbiter of all that is good because he made the universe. He's the arbiter of all that is good and he made the universe.

Yeah, but there's a problem... is god good because he created the rules of what "good" is in the first place, or is there a "good" that is higher than god which is a set of rules which god himself follows in order to maintain that title?

 

[punshhh]

Just READ the damned OP, Punshhh. It's that easy.

Ok, and the only rational response is also easy. We are not in a position to address the issue, due to our limitations.

Or if you are thinking only of human god concepts, then it is the anthropology of beliefs, which is well documented.

Don't be so irrelevant.

I didn't start talking about the idea of being a "god" in a world of my own making.

Again all you are doing is showing how confused you are. I was answering a specific scenario. Now you say "not at all", and then assuming a different scenario. You are hopeless.

You fell into the trap of determinism, there is no way that claims of everything being pre-determined can be supported, while we are in ignorance of the origin of physical existence.

Your suggestion that I make **** up is noted and ignored.

Who said anything about making anything up? I was reminding you that there may be more to reality than what has been discovered by humanity so far. Materialists tend to ignore this reality (a whole can of worms).

 

[Belz...]

We are not in a position to address the issue, due to our limitations.

If that's your answer then so be it. I'm not sure I understand what that means, though, but I'll bet the clarification will be just as opaque.

Or if you are thinking only of human god concepts, then it is the anthropology of beliefs, which is well documented.

There are no gods but those we create. What else could I be thinking about ?

I didn't start talking about the idea of being a "god" in a world of my own making.

...what ?

You fell into the trap of determinism

No, I didn't. I don't assume determinism at all. Are you a random post generator ?

Who said anything about making anything up?

You did. That we don't know everything is not a license to make stuff up.

 

[Paul Bethke]

No, you're still not answering my question. You are wrapping your own preconceived notions into another package, but we've been through this one before: WHY does one's power to create worlds somehow deserve total obedience ?

I did answer it—it is logical to honour the One who has shown such enormous ability as to create the worlds, to abide by the laws he has set out, so that all people can live in harmony.

As I said laws are to govern people—so a system exists to punish those who transgress! The purpose of laws is primarily to protect.

So God has given laws that will enable those who obey to enter his holy presence. Those who disobey will be shut out of his presence and spend eternity in solitude.

 

[Aridas]

If that's your answer then so be it. I'm not sure I understand what that means, though, but I'll bet the clarification will be just as opaque.

The clarification, by the look of it is - "We don't have enough information and and may well have no right to pass judgement on whether whichever creator is in question is right by virtue of being the creator."

It's not actually a valid answer, though, honestly. The closest valid answer would likely be "No, the creator is not right by virtue of being the creator, but may well be right separately from that and without more specifics, some of which that may not be obtainable by the methods at our disposal, no solid answers even could be found."

 

[aggle-rithm]

Let's say there is a creator who fashioned a universe governed by unbreakable rules of logic. He also populated that universe with beings able to understand these rules.

Then someone comes along, claiming to be that creator, saying "here is a list of arbitrary commandments that run contrary to the logic upon which Creation is built. Obey them, or else!"

I would bet my last donut that this is not the same guy.