Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities

[Joseph Sweeney]

@Aldin @Dr.Goomonkey I wish to preface my response with an apology to both of you, and by saying that while I welcome responses from you both, I do not have any expectations as so much time has elapsed between now and the original discussion.

Originally Posted by Dr.Goomonkey

While I see the logic you're using, I'm going to turn all those points around at you, even though I'm arguing entirely for the sake of argument in this post and not because I actually believe the ideas I'm suggesting.

Your definition of omnipotent seems to be taking omni to its very farthest reaches. Now I point back to Sean Murray, the creator of No Man's Sky. While he is far from a God, he could be called omnipotent in reference to his creation. Sure, his coding skills limit his potential, and the very nature of code is sure to impact what he is capable of, but in the end all of his creation comes from him, thus allowing for a somewhat limited definition of omnipotent to be viable.

Does omnipotent mean you can do everything, or do everything within some boundaries of what is possible to do? Same question as far as omniscient. My answer to both of these is that, in reality, I don't know; but I think both definitions for both words are useful in these kinds of discussions (as useful as anything is in these discussions).

But the creator of No Man's Sky is not all powerful, not in respect to his own creation, and certainly not in the place in which he resides. He isn't even maximally powerful. You say it yourself when you indicate he is limited by his skills. A better programmer or designer than he down the line easily invalidates the example.

So, let's put in our head a God that is omnipotent and omniscient, but limited to what is possible to do and know (you don't have to try to believe in him, just imagine ). Let's throw all-loving into the mix, too. Can you get a God that has it out for some people in this scenario? Sure. If in creating people it is necessary for there to be the evil that we see in the world, then all of this can work together. If He loves everyone, then he would want as many of them to be happy as possible. If some of these people have to be crummy and will necessarily bring down the happiness of others, in this life and the next, then an all-loving God would have to have it out for those people for the sake of the many. He might feel terribly about having to do this, but nonetheless his omni-powers are limited to what is possible and this is the best possible mode of operation for him.

I think you have to acknowledge that the example you are providing is extremely ad hoc. There's no reason to believe that crummy people must exist in order for good people to exist, or attain reward for good actions.

Nor am I intending to claim that, should god reveal himself to everyone, evil people would simply stop being evil. In fact, I know many people who claim to know god exists, but still hate him. What I am discussing however, is what you mention as well: the salvation of as many people as possible; and given the attributes of god, he wants this and can accomplish this without the removal of free will. Someone like myself, for instance, would be added to the number of souls saved if god's existence were simply made clear; I would freely choose that. Some people would freely choose not to be saved. Bad people would still exist, so even if the loophole you provided were necessarily true (although I don't think it is) my argument still provides for that.

Originally Posted by Aldin

My answer to this is simple. I don't think people who believe different things from me are somehow less clear-headed, reasonable, or rational than I am. I think they have chosen differently. And that's their prerogative.

I also said, however, that what I observe more closely matches with what I read in the Bible than it does with anything else I have read. The FSM makes for an easy counter-example here. Nothing about the FSM as creator matches anything I have read or observed. In fact, everything I have read says the FSM is a construct which no one is intended to believe is the actual creator of the universe and was manufactured primarily to mock the Christian God.

On the other side, I have the Bible which does a profound job in displaying an understanding of the human condition. So I find it trustworthy when it says, for example "do to others as you would have them do to you." Expanding from that, there are many things in the Bible I have found true and valuable. Therefore, when it talks about God as the inspiration and source of those things I find true and valuable, I listen. This isn't "picking from a hat". It's making an informed decision.

I just wish to clarify, because I am not sure I understand you correctly, you do not believe necessarily that your god is the better, more clear choice? But you find your source more trustworthy? Now I fully admit it just could me be failing to comprehend, but the only two implications I walk away with when reading this explanation (oddly enough) are two opposing messages:


1)

My answer to this is simple. I don't think people who believe different things from me are somehow less clear-headed, reasonable, or rational than I am. I think they have chosen differently. And that's their prerogative.

If they are not less reasonable or rational in this respect, then reason and rationality have nothing to do with it, and hence it is, in fact, a pick out of the hat.


Or....


2)

On the other side, I have the Bible which does a profound job in displaying an understanding of the human condition. So I find it trustworthy when it says, for example "do to others as you would have them do to you." Expanding from that, there are many things in the Bible I have found true and valuable. Therefore, when it talks about God as the inspiration and source of those things I find true and valuable, I listen. This isn't "picking from a hat". It's making an informed decision.

If you are making an informed decision, then there is rational and reason behind it, and hence, people have reasoned less well and clear headed than you.

Can I ask you a question? What is the source of your decision to choose vanilla or chocolate?

Always open for good questions.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I certainly can say past experience and knowledge, and I am happy to say so. But then what differentiates the time I choose vanilla vs. the time I choose chocolate? Like I said, I'm very unsure about determinism and hesitant to engage it beyond the scope of existential belief.

I would also amend where I said belief is not a choice when I originally responded to this,

I think that you would say that anything that someone accepts as real (or unreal) from generally available information (google, et al) or from personal experience, is “knowledge”, as opposed to belief. I also think you have a much lower barrier for what you consider to be knowledge than I do. From my perspective, you seem to use belief and knowledge somewhat interchangeably. If I correctly understand your position that belief is not a choice, then all belief is determined by knowledge and could be considered to be some sort of offshoot of knowledge. In that calculation, belief is nothing more than projecting the future on the basis of the present and past.

I think whether or not I choose to believe if you are able to juggle or not, while partially informed by knowledge, is a choice provided I have never before seen you juggle. Now this is, of course, as explained earlier, different than existential belief.

I wish to offer two rebuttals to the idea that existential belief is not deterministic:

1) If belief is a choice, was Lucifer robbed of freewill by knowing god existed?

2) Allow me to provide an analogy. Imagine you go skiing. This was a choice you made, along with what skis you used, which mountain you skied at .etc. However, when skiing you happen to get caught up in avalanche. Was the choice yours to get caught in the avalanche? Or was it merely an undeniable product of your choices? In the same way you can make choices in life (such as to take a math class, a philosophy class, or going skiing) and then arrive upon a deterministic event (2+2=4, god does or does not exist, or getting hit by an avalanche).

~Aldin, more of a mint chip guy

Do you not find that mint chip tastes like toothpaste?

Once again, I apologize for having taken so long to respond, and I understand that having done so twice has its implications.

~JS