Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

When you become a God, will you use evil the way God does?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.





So you would create robots who had no choice to rebel or no choice to reject to love you as God? How would you enjoy eternal life with billions of "robots"? Even we as humans are trying to create computers that learn and think for themselves independent of human input and programming.


What is better?
To be a robot or a slave who smiles at his owner all the time because he fears hell?

Regards
DL


Try again, that's a false dichotomy fallacy.



A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.


Here.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Do you think the earth a good place or an evil one?


Neither -- it's just a place.


When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle.
What do you think?

Candide.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”


While I think that would be a logical conclusion, given your assumption, I don't think that it's a necessary one.

One of the main issues that I have with Sam Harris' "the Moral Landscape" is that he fails to provide an objective base for what is "better" or "worse" for people, and that to say that "better" is to avoid a state of never ending suffering ignores the fact that, if reality was a state of never ending suffering, we wouldn't know that we were suffering.

The "best of all possible worlds" idea is much the same -- we have no idea whether it is, because we have no idea what that means.
edit on 7-9-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.



Seems like a better philosophy and theology than the Christian God with all the demands, needs and conditions that we are supposed to dance to. A lot of hands on though.

My own preference is a self-sustaining system where I can just take off to some new project.
Much like evolution works now actually.

Regards
DL


Then, what would be your purpose for creating them if you won't even watch?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Do you think the earth a good place or an evil one?


Neither -- it's just a place.


When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle.
What do you think?

Candide.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”


While I think that would be a logical conclusion, given your assumption, I don't think that it's a necessary one.

One of the main issues that I have with Sam Harris' "the Moral Landscape" is that he fails to provide an objective base for what is "better" or "worse" for people, and that to say that "better" is to avoid a state of never ending suffering ignores the fact that, if reality was a state of never ending suffering, we wouldn't know that we were suffering.

The "best of all possible worlds" idea is much the same -- we have no idea whether it is, because we have no idea what that means.
edit on 7-9-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair


I guess that Harris had never seen this clip.
To me, the better would be to put sanctity back into marriage and women as the source of life. By putting women down and not giving her equality, men have put ourselves down and forgotten what our real duty to each other and humanity.

blog.ted.com...

As to the world. It is as is due to billions of interacting parts and to change it, that many changes would have to be planned and executed. Impossible IOW.

If it is not the best that it can be given all the conditions at hand, it would mean that we are all not doing the best we can with what we individually have and are and that is not the way humans work. We always try to do the best with what is at hand. So does nature.

When you were born, if you can say that nature did the best she could with your DNA and all the other conditions at hand, then I can say that all entities started the same way and that means that all is the best of all possible outcomes given the conditions at hand.

Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.





So you would create robots who had no choice to rebel or no choice to reject to love you as God? How would you enjoy eternal life with billions of "robots"? Even we as humans are trying to create computers that learn and think for themselves independent of human input and programming.


What is better?
To be a robot or a slave who smiles at his owner all the time because he fears hell?

Regards
DL


Try again, that's a false dichotomy fallacy.



But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life (Rom. 6:16-22).

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.



Seems like a better philosophy and theology than the Christian God with all the demands, needs and conditions that we are supposed to dance to. A lot of hands on though.

My own preference is a self-sustaining system where I can just take off to some new project.
Much like evolution works now actually.

Regards
DL


Then, what would be your purpose for creating them if you won't even watch?


As I said, it would be a self-sustaining system. I would know it's outcome so why watch.
Re-runs are only good for a few views.

Even your system. After you make the same kinds of adjustments for a few thousand years, boredom would drive you to suicide.

Even with the variety of my system, I do not know how long I could do it before insanity or suicide would take me.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?


That is stated as if nature was a sentient being, able to do "well" or "not so well", by moral choice. In my view, nature is without purpose, and if one had to apply a morality to it, that would be amoral, so the question is an irrational one that I have no answer for. But that's just my opinion, sorry.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.



Seems like a better philosophy and theology than the Christian God with all the demands, needs and conditions that we are supposed to dance to. A lot of hands on though.

My own preference is a self-sustaining system where I can just take off to some new project.
Much like evolution works now actually.

Regards
DL


Then, what would be your purpose for creating them if you won't even watch?


I would know it's outcome so why watch.



If you know the outcome, then why create it in the first place?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The word Paul uses for "slave" is "dulous" in the Greek which is a bondservant. One who serves freely of one's own volition out of love. Precisely why I said you employed a false dichotomy fallacy.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Can you say that nature did produce the best she could at your birth, defects and all, if any?


That is stated as if nature was a sentient being, able to do "well" or "not so well", by moral choice. In my view, nature is without purpose, and if one had to apply a morality to it, that would be amoral, so the question is an irrational one that I have no answer for. But that's just my opinion, sorry.


No sentience, no morality, just nature doing what nature does.
Did it inadvertently do the best possible or was it slack in doing the best it could?
That works for any living thing from a blade of grass to a tree.
Does nature try to produce the best tree it can or something less.
Pure logic an reason is all that is required to answer this.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


If I were god I wouldn't give my creations the desires such as we have, and then tell them they can't act on those desires.

We know that life is hard enough for healthy individuals, so I would ensure that every child is born without deformities.

I wouldn't make some people ugly as sin.

I wouldn't kill any of them.

I wouldn't side with one group over another.

I wouldn't force them, or even just let them worship me.



Seems like a better philosophy and theology than the Christian God with all the demands, needs and conditions that we are supposed to dance to. A lot of hands on though.

My own preference is a self-sustaining system where I can just take off to some new project.
Much like evolution works now actually.

Regards
DL


Then, what would be your purpose for creating them if you won't even watch?


I would know it's outcome so why watch.



If you know the outcome, then why create it in the first place?


I need a bit to do. Eternity is a long time for me to just sit about playing with my eh, toes.
Then again I would make a wife to play with but even that needs a break now and then.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


The word Paul uses for "slave" is "dulous" in the Greek which is a bondservant. One who serves freely of one's own volition out of love. Precisely why I said you employed a false dichotomy fallacy.


B S.
A bond servant would not get beat and if he serves out of love he would not have run away in the first place.
Now you are even trying to be dishonest. Go away Satan.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Doulos is both Paul and Peter's favorite way to refer to themselves. Your Greek leaves much to be desired, you can check for yourself what that term means in Koine Greek.


a slave,

bondman, man of servile condition a slave

metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests a servant, attendant


Doulos.

edit on 10-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Thanks for this.

Regards
DL






top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join