Let's perform a thought experiment: "Create a world of your own"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Economist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lelinator said:
The really interesting question is…is the law of unintended consequences true even for God? Sin and death would seem to suggest that the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
I think God created a natural order where any number of possibilities can become actual within the limits of it’s nature. So in a sense there are unintended consequences, but only in the sense that God did not directly with intent design a shark with razor sharp teeth (for example), rather it is simply one possible outcome of what he did create, and there is likely many universes doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
No. Just making a world that we think would be suitable. It has many aspects to it. This is just one.
Click to expand...
I think your universe is creatively limited, because you are allowing no possibility other than what you desire. But you don’t know that some good could not have become real otherwise. This is merely to say there may be some good in allowing your universe to have some creative possibilities of it’s own. In other-words there might be some value in creating a blind watchmaker.
 
Last edited:
Your right. I meant that originally no one, including animals, were carnivores. (Did you know that centipedes are carnivores? I enjoy reading up on different things.)
 
The answer I gave is all the answer available. I didn’t perceive the question as a serious attempt to gather information, but rather a not-so-subtle dig, and answered accordingly.
 
whatistrue said:
The answer I gave is all the answer available. I didn’t perceive the question as a serious attempt to gather information, but rather a not-so-subtle dig, and answered accordingly.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking for information. I’m just asking what you believe. Based on the fact that you have told me that there is one thing you don’t know ‘because you weren’t there’.

I think that that is a generic get-out-of-jail card used to avoid giving an opinion which would support an argument with which you would rather not agree.
 
If I agree or disagree with an argument, I say so. I have been convinced to change my position on various things based on sound arguments more than once.

I haven’t gone back through the thread to see exactly what is being referred to here as I have other demands on my time, but if I remember correctly it had to do with whether I thought that there was predation before the Fall. What you should keep in mind here is that I am not necessarily going to parrot the official line since I am not Catholic, and frankly I am not entirely sure what the official line is in this case. But more to the point I believe that for nearly as long as there have been life forms of any kind on Earth, some of those life forms have survived by consuming other life forms, and some of those life forms that were consumed could be described as animal, therefore I believe that carnivores have existed for most of the time that life on Earth has existed. Whether that state of affairs is a net good or not is debatable, but I can definitely see where such activity can be of value in a self-sustaining ecosystem, whether it was originally designed or “jest growed”.
 
Last edited:
The reasonableness was a matter of opinion. And the level of such is rapidly declining in mine. Next?
 
whatistrue said:
The reasonableness was a matter of opinion. And the level of such is rapidly declining in mine. Next?
Click to expand...
In a Catholic forum it is an exceptionally reasonable question. If you are not Catholic then I would assume that a reasonable answer would have been: ‘I am not Catholic. I don’t proscribe to the concept of the fall’.

An unreasonable answer (in fact, no answer at all) would be: ‘I wasn’t there so I don’t know’.

A reasonable follow up to that would be asking you what other events that might include. That’s next.
 
You are assigning reasonableness from your perspective. I assigned it from mine. As far as how I respond, mine wins. I really think this is sufficient thread derailment to no real purpose any more.
 
whatistrue said:
You are assigning reasonableness from your perspective. I assigned it from mine. As far as how I respond, mine wins. I really think this is sufficient thread derailment to no real purpose any more.
Click to expand...
The whole idea of this thread is to conjure up an imaginary world and see what people’s reactions are to it. I can’t see you having much (name removed by moderator)ut if you base your opinions on any matter depending on whether you were actually in attendence.
 
I am having a difficult time believing that you are actually that wrapped around the axle about a single throwaway line in a single post. If you really are, then there is no point in continuing as far as I am concerned. If you are really not, then there is no point in continuing the game. In either case, there is no point in any of this. I am done with it. Muting now.
 
Last edited:
“You have sufficient power to create a physical universe. What would you do?”

that can certainly tickle the minds of imagination concerning speculative creations…

however, the Hope of the New Earth and New Jerusalem/Heaven to come - surpasses anything whatsoever that my imperfect mind could ever conjur…
 
whatistrue said:
I am having a difficult time believing that you are actually that wrapped around the axle about a single throwaway line in a single post. If you really are, then there is no point in continuing as far as I am concerned. If you are really not, then there is no point in continuing the game. In either case, there is no point in any of this. I am done with it. Muting now.
Click to expand...
Well, you won’t read this, but for the benefit of others…

The trite ‘you weren’t there’ line is one trotted out in my direction whenever something like evolution or abiogenesis comes up. It seems incredible to some that I can suggest some process or event from contemporaneous evidence and have some confidence about it without me actually having wandered the prehistoric forrest to personally view it happening.

So to have it used as an excuse when a reasonable question is asked about an opinion on what life was like before the fall niggles a little. And I was not (and still am not and most likely will not be) inclined to let such nonsense slip by unchallenged.

Use it at your peril.
 
Economist said:
“You have sufficient power to create a physical universe. What would you do?”
  1. The laws of nature will be whatever you decide. Will there be entropy? Will there be death?
  2. You decide what the aim of the game would be - for the inhabitants?
  3. What kinds of beings would you create? Deterministic or give them a certain amount of freedom? How much freedom?
  4. Would you create sapient beings (able to think and reason)?
  5. Would you create sentient beings (able to perceive pleasure and pain)? (Or both?)
  6. Would you create some kind of an afterlife?
  7. If yes, what kind? Only one afterlife, or several ones?"
  8. Do these afterlives run consecutively (reincarnation)?
  9. Or concurrently? (Something heaven-like and hell-like)?
  10. Could the beings remember their previous life (if any?), so they could learn from them?
  11. In this case would there be a “traffic” between them, or they run “forever”?
  12. Would you reveal your existence to the inhabitants?
  13. If yes, would this revelation unquestionable, or could it be rationally doubted?
  14. You are not bound by the laws of the created world, you can change them at will.
Click to expand...
It’s weird. I’m getting a Minecraft vibe from this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top