The God Paradox

[Thermal]

Waaaaaaaay too much bolding and hiliting ITT. Some of us are still hung over from Independence Day Weeked here in the States. Could we tone it down a notch? Or at least only have new insights put on blast?

 

[porch]

We follow the Old Ways; Poop is sacred.

 

[Chanakya]

If you want to approach this from a purely logical perspective (and in the absence of biblical nonsense) then a partial perspective is as follows:

If God is to create people who are more than just bots then he needs to give them "free will". This means that not only must they have the capability of making evil choices but they must be able to make those choices knowing that negative consequences (including death) would follow. This is known as "The Logical Problem of Evil".

I can't give a more complete answer than this because I am philosophically limited.

That's just parroting the standard RCC apologetics. None of that holds.

First, free will is an illusion. It's better understood merely as complexity.

Second, it's easy enough to conceive of an infinitely complex organism that is nevertheless precluded from wanting to do things that are downright evil; or at any rate from actually doing them.

No reason why not ending up with automatons or bots will necessarily mean having potentially evil creatures.

 

[Leumas]

That's just parroting the standard RCC apologetics. None of that holds.

First, free will is an illusion. It's better understood merely as complexity.

Second, it's easy enough to conceive of an infinitely complex organism that is nevertheless precluded from wanting to do things that are downright evil; or at any rate from actually doing them.

No reason why not ending up with automatons or bots will necessarily mean having potentially evil creatures.

Not to mention that having to eat or else die... is not exactly free will... and then if you do eat you eventually die form so many diseases of the digestive system or contaminated foods that are contaminated because of the digestive system generating filth on which microbes thrive etc. etc etc.... all having nothing to do with free will but rather DELIBERATE nasty monstrous design that created the faulty systems and microbes.

 

[Leumas]

You nibbled around the edges of my previous post in three different responses, but veered away from the main point.

I did answer you... you said you are grateful for the meal... I said what if you are the meal... and your answer is ouch... my answer back is ... exactly.

Your whole idea is that you prefer life as it is with all its faults... but this has nothing to do with a creator concept.

You have life with all its faults already... and you are right in being thankful for living the life you are living... but there are people who every time they take a piss they have to empty a bag hanging from their sides

There are people who have no clean water or food altogether let alone a meal.

Now if the creator created them with the ability to sunbathe for their energy and did not create microbes that kill them when they drink water... wouldn't that be nice??

So the point is... the design is sadistic pathetic and the cause of all sorts of mayhem and strife.

Which is not the concept that god-imaginers have of their creator... a nasty bungling designer... is it?

 

[acbytesla]

There was a time I pondered about the existence of God. But those days are long past.

There is little to no reason to believe that God is anything other than a literary character in a mythical and superstitious tome.

 

[Leumas]

If you want to approach this from a purely logical perspective (and in the absence of biblical nonsense) then a partial perspective is as follows:

If God is to create people who are more than just bots then he needs to give them "free will". This means that not only must they have the capability of making evil choices but they must be able to make those choices knowing that negative consequences (including death) would follow. This is known as "The Logical Problem of Evil".

I can't give a more complete answer than this because I am philosophically limited.

Free will... ... wow.... have you even read the OP??

Do you have free will whether or not to get colon cancer... or kidney stones... or hemorrhoids or hepatitis or or or or or or ... or tape worms or liver flukes or giardia or or or or ... all things your creator concept created and let loose on the food system which people HAVE TO eat and drink because of his nasty design.

 

[Leumas]

There was a time I pondered about the existence of God. But those days are long past.

There is little to no reason to believe that God is anything other than a literary character in mythical superstitious tome.

Exactly ... and the case is slammed shut in the face of anyone who wants to say things like ID or "greater good" or quantum pseudo-science or looovve

The case of nasty imbecilic design (I³D+ schadenfreude) just does not leave them any wiggle gaps.

And now combine that with the evil problem and hiddenness problem and you end up with a cumulative case for the demise of any god concepts humans have wished for.

 

[Leumas]

Well the esophagus settled the incompetent bit for me.

Yes indeed... it is a cumulative case ...

But seriously... most mechanical problems of the human (and animal) anatomy... have a detrimental effect on the animal but hardly ever affect others around it.

However... the fact that we cannot produce the material needed to regenerate our cells and have to actually consume this material from after taking it away from other creatures that are alive and the fact that even some bacteria can manufacture internally all the amino acids required for their regeneration... shows a deliberate design flaw (assuming a designer of course).

And this deliberate defect does not just impact the organism... it impacts the entire eco system around the organism and the entire globe.

And this deficiency combined with other anatomical flaws is the cause of countless calamities to the entire eco system and the globe. So for example, had we not needed to eat and drink (not to mention breathe) the esophagus design flaw would not have been of any consequence.

 

[Leumas]

We follow the Old Ways; Poop is sacred.

I thought it was the sperm that is sacred... every one... no???

 

[Leumas]

The first time you mentioned this I thought maybe you were just being ironic, but now I have to ask... what do you think fossil fuels come from?

Not exclusively cockroach flesh, of course, but there's certainly some of that in there. (Cockroaches have been around a long time.)

So, do you use fossil fuels? If so, is such use an absolute necessity for your survival? Are you a cruel sordid monster? Are the engineers who designed internal combustion engine vehicles, gas stoves, gas- or coal-fired power plants, etc. cruel sordid monsters?

Seriously... you think crude oil is the same as using live cockroaches ... so eating chickens is the same as eating coal or drinking petroleum???

That depends. Are the lithium, rare earth metals, structural metals etc. needed to build and operate the solar energy powered car sustainably sourced from mines and factories that pay fair wages and don't cause environmental damage that kills animals? If so, then I can't afford that car. If not, then what's so morally superior? It makes just as much sense to use the cockroaches, which we kill on purpose in vast numbers anyhow without even using their flesh or blood for anything.

So using cockroaches is the same as using lithium?? So eating pork is the same as mouthing mud???

 

[Leumas]

No, I appreciate all of the above. My point was, if God had created a narrative, like a video game or a novel or movie or something, or maybe a simulation, but not intending to imbue the contents of it --- us --- with consciousness, well then no matter how gory the set-up, that's hardly evil, since there's no consciousness anywhere, right? Like a novelist writing a violent novel is not therefore an evil person, because he did not actually intend conscious creatures to suffer. So that, if consciousness emerged in this universe unbeknownst to and unintended by the Creator, well then that might give you a non-sadistic non-psychotic Creator, despite the undeniable sufferings and misery that this world is unarguably made up for, for all life forms.

Video game creators know their creatures are only transistor-switches and not real... no robot maker ever decided to have their robots butcher other robots and consume them for the purpose of replenishing their batteries.

Short point: No consciousness, no suffering, right?

The OP is not about suffering... it is about BAD DESIGN...

Robots made by us do not have a consciousness... yet you will still think that an engineer who made a robot that needed to butcher another robot and smelt it and consume it in order to keep running ... a bad design... no???

Anyhoo. Not to make too much of a thing of it, just a random thought I put down. I don't intend this as a defense of God or anything.

I know... I appreciate the debating and ideas exchange ... very much.

Ah well, it is just a bit, isn't it? Not that I mind in the least. Throw as much of it at the God-botherers as you like; and while I tend to be kind of low on the belligerence thing myself, generally, but in a good cause like this and given the correct opening I'll be happy to join in myself!

No no... I do not mind ... I just would like it if you please can tell me exactly what parts you thought were belligerent and why???

I don't mind being belligerent especially now after all that happened... being polite and civil is like this....

 

[acbytesla]

If you want to approach this from a purely logical perspective (and in the absence of biblical nonsense) then a partial perspective is as follows:

If God is to create people who are more than just bots then he needs to give them "free will". This means that not only must they have the capability of making evil choices but they must be able to make those choices knowing that negative consequences (including death) would follow. This is known as "The Logical Problem of Evil".

I can't give a more complete answer than this because I am philosophically limited.

But here's a conundrum. God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. He knows the number of hairs on our head as well as our thoughts. He created us all knowing exactly what we will do.

If this is true, God DID NOT give us free will.

 

[Leumas]

But here's a conundrum. God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. He knows the number of hairs on our head as well as our thoughts. He created us all knowing exactly what we will do.

If this is true, God DID NOT give us free will.

Not to mention that the OP is about deliberately imbecilic inept incompetent design and letting it keep going despite all the mayhem it causes.

I³D + schadenfreude​

Such a designer does not have to be all powerful or all knowing or all anything...

Designing creatures that are biologically incapable of surviving unless they wrench the cells off of other beings ... is not giving them free well... it is giving intentionally mayhem causing bad design.

 

[GDon]

Should we get rid of lions in the wild, in your opinion? Why should there be lions in the wild in the first place?

I posed some questions to you earlier... can you please answer... I would love to know what you would answer.... thanks

Okay, I will. But PLEASE don't move the goal-posts. If you mean "engineer", then don't change it after my response to "Oh, I meant an OMNIPOTENT engineer". I can only answer the question as asked.

Don't you think that an engineer who designs a car that requires the blood and flesh of cockroaches to function is a cruel sordid monster??

Designs? No, of course not. That sounds quite clever actually. If the engineer built that car, then breeds cockroaches fit for purpose, then kills them for use as fuel, I don't see any problems with that either. Stuffing them in live I'd see as a moral issue though.

Do you think the engineer who designs a car that can run on Solar Energy is a better and less grotesque a designer than the aforementioned one???

Designs? No.

Which car do you prefer to buy and run???

The solar energy car.

So: humanity has the ability to remove predators like lions and eagles from the wild. Should we do that? Would that make the universe a better place?

 

[Myriad]

I did answer you... you said you are grateful for the meal... I said what if you are the meal... and your answer is ouch... my answer back is ... exactly.

Your whole idea is that you prefer life as it is with all its faults... but this has nothing to do with a creator concept.

You have life with all its faults already... and you are right in being thankful for living the life you are living... but there are people who every time they take a piss they have to empty a bag hanging from their sides

There are people who have no clean water or food altogether let alone a meal.

Now if the creator created them with the ability to sunbathe for their energy and did not create microbes that kill them when they drink water... wouldn't that be nice??

So the point is... the design is sadistic pathetic and the cause of all sorts of mayhem and strife.

Which is not the concept that god-imaginers have of their creator... a nasty bungling designer... is it?

Does that match the concept you have of evolution? A nasty sadistic pathetic bungling natural process?

God-imaginers (of the particular modern sort we're discussing) imagine that without God, the world and themselves wouldn't exist. At all. It's kind of implicit in the idea of a creator, right?

Your premise seems to be that people who believe in a creator should prefer the creator (and themselves and the world) not to exist because the world is full of strife. I don't believe in the creator posited by modern monotheisms, but I prefer that myself and the world exist. Why should believing in a creator affect that preference one way or the other?

God-imaginers generally don't react to the idea of a creator of the world with resentment over the world's nature. That seems to anger or disappoint you somehow.

Now if the creator created them with the ability to sunbathe for their energy and did not create microbes that kill them when they drink water... wouldn't that be nice??

You're describing a plant. Would it be nice to be a plant?

In a world free of strife, brains and self-awareness would never evolve. There would be no need for them, no survival advantage for having them. So they'd fade from the genome.

If animals were never created (whether by a deity or by evolution) would you somehow be better off? Do you think it would be nice not to think? Or not to exist?

 

[Leumas]

Okay, I will. But PLEASE don't move the goal-posts. If you mean "engineer", then don't change it after my response to "Oh, I meant an OMNIPOTENT engineer". I can only answer the question as asked.

Thanks for answering

In fact my OP does not even require that the God concept be omnipotent... so omnipotence is irrelevant to the design issue.

Designs? No, of course not. That sounds quite clever actually. If the engineer built that car, then breeds cockroaches fit for purpose, then kills them for use as fuel, I don't see any problems with that either. Stuffing them in live I'd see as a moral issue though.

Exactly!!!

Designs? No.

The solar energy car.

Exactly!!

So: humanity has the ability to remove predators like lions and eagles from the wild. Should we do that? Would that make the universe a better place?

They are already doing that... and no we should not do that... because of the eco system.

So: humanity has the ability to remove predators like lions and eagles from the wild. Should we do that? Would that make the universe a better place?

Better place for whom or what? And no it would not.

But do you know what would make the universe a better place... removing humans...

If humans screw the eco system they will perish... but if they perish the eco system will not be harmed.... not at all... in fact it will benefit.

 

[Myriad]

Seriously... you think crude oil is the same as using live cockroaches ... so eating chickens is the same as eating coal or drinking petroleum???

No, using crude oil is the same as using dead cockroaches.

Would I kill cockroaches to use them to power a car? Sure. Why shouldn't I? A car could run on unicorn farts but I guarantee it still kills insects just by driving it. Even walking kills insects.

Eating chickens nourishes me; eating coal would not, and drinking crude oil would kill me. So obviously those are not the same. But in both cases we're using energy originally captured by photosynthesis and subsequently concentrated by natural processes.

So using cockroaches is the same as using lithium??

If obtaining and using the lithium harms the environment to the point of killing insects, then yes, it is. And I guarantee you that it does.

So eating pork is the same as mouthing mud???

For me it's the same, as I'd be about equally likely to do either one. But for most people, it's not the same because pork contains useful concentrated energy (needed to sustain our lives including running those metabolically expensive brains we've all got) and mud does not.

Does any of this have anything to do with religious beliefs? Do you think people who believe in a creator god should change their beliefs because their creator didn't hand out exceptions to the law of conservation of energy?

 

[Leumas]

Does that match the concept you have of evolution? A nasty sadistic pathetic bungling natural process?

Evolution is a process in which things like "nasty sadistic pathetic bungling" have no meaning.

But for a designer those things have a meaning....

You are confusing the God concepts with natural processes.

God-imaginers (of the particular modern sort we're discussing) imagine that without God, the world and themselves wouldn't exist. At all. It's kind of implicit in the idea of a creator, right?

Exactly... but being a bungling imbecilic inept incompetent nasty sadistic designer is not implicit in any of those concepts... no???

And REALITY implies that this is the case.

Your premise seems to be that people who believe in a creator should prefer the creator (and themselves and the world) not to exist because the world is full of strife.

Nope... I said nothing of the sort... but god-imaginers will not imagine one who is a bungling imbecilic inept incompetent nasty sadistic designer nor would they prefer that it be so.

I don't believe in the creator posited by modern monotheisms, but I prefer that myself and the world exist.

You do exist... and a creator had nothing to do with it.

Why should believing in a creator affect that preference one way or the other?

Again you are misunderstanding my point... it has nothing to do with preferring not to exist or not ... it has to do with preferring that their god concept not be a bungling imbecilic inept incompetent nasty sadistic designer.

God-imaginers generally don't react to the idea of a creator of the world with resentment over the world's nature. That seems to anger or disappoint you somehow.

Again strawmanning... seems your entire post is based on a misunderstanding and strawmanning.

I do not give a gnat's anus what god-imaginers resent or not... I just want them to admit that their god concept is... as attested to by reality... ineluctably a bungling imbecilic inept incompetent nasty sadistic designer... no matter which way they turn it... if it created reality as it is then this creator of this reality is an I³D + schadenfreude

You're describing a plant. Would it be nice to be a plant?

Nope... I am describing solar powered anything ... and you are really unable to think beyond WHAT IS and thinking that a creator did his best and you are grateful for it.

WHAT IS ... is nature and there is no creator.

What the op is about ... is ... a creator concept which is a paradox when combined with reality...

God concepts + reality ==> Paradoxical conclusions ==> either reality is a delusion or God concepts are false... but... if reality is a delusion then so are any god concepts... ergo... god concepts are a falsity... QED!!!​

In a world free of strife, brains and self-awareness would never evolve. There would be no need for them, no survival advantage for having them. So they'd fade from the genome.

If animals were never created (whether by a deity or by evolution) would you somehow be better off? Do you think it would be nice not to think? Or not to exist?

A false dichotomy on top of strawmanning.

Are you really incapable of understanding that if there is a creator then it could have created many different alternatives to your false dichotomy???

At the very least... just like it gave some bacteria the ability to auto-generate all the amino acids they need without having to eat other creatures... so could this creator have done so for all animals.

However if this creator is nothing more than a force of nature then it is NATURE not the creator concept that god-imaginers imagine and least of all they would never imagine an I³D + schadenfreude one. And at the very least they should stop telling us how amazing it is.

 

[Leumas]

No, using crude oil is the same as using dead cockroaches.

Would I kill cockroaches to use them to power a car? Sure. Why shouldn't I? A car could run on unicorn farts but I guarantee it still kills insects just by driving it. Even walking kills insects.

Eating chickens nourishes me; eating coal would not, and drinking crude oil would kill me. So obviously those are not the same. But in both cases we're using energy originally captured by photosynthesis and subsequently concentrated by natural processes.

Now... if the creator made you able to be nourished by crude oil ... would that not be less of an I³D +schadenfreude than having to slaughter other living animals to be nourished???

Are you really incapable of understanding that using petroleum is not the same as killing animals yourself??