The constructor and his world

[Spock]

Let’s consider a constructor who wishes to design and create a very complex system. He plans to create many beings in that system, some limited resources that those beings can use and a build a life for themselves. Since the resources are limited, and the number of the beings can grow, there will be some conflicts over the resources. This constructor has some goals, one among them is to build a stable, but not static system. He may also have some other goals, not particularly relevant for the moment. Also he has some configurations in mind which he definitely does not want in his system. Furthermore he does not want to be bothered by constantly overlooking and directing every part of the system every instant, so he plans the system dynamics to be self-sustaining. What are his options for the beings he wants to put into the system?

1) Option number one. He can build the beings to be fully determined. He can give them a detailed “program” which would allow the beings to do exactly the one action, which is the desired action by the constructor. The problem with this method is that the programming must account for every possible scenario which the beings will encounter. If the system under consideration is very complex, this solution becomes impractical and maybe even impossible. The constructor must foresee every possible event, every possible permutation and combination of the events, and must program for it. Due to the limitation of the beings to be constructed this will only work for a simple system, but not for a complex one. No matter how large the processing capacity of the beings, it will stay limited, and as the system grows, its complexity will outgrow the abilities of the beings.

2) Option number two. The constructor can plan a self-regulating system into the beings. The beings will have certain options to choose from in every scenario they encounter. Instead of ironclad rules, he constructor can build in guidelines to help the decision making process. The beings will have freedom to choose from among the options allowed by the guidelines, but they will be unable to choose an option which is deemed undesirable by the constructor. The advantage of this solution is obvious: instead of having myriads of rules, there will be some guidelines. Much fewer to program for. Also this method is flexible; the constructor does not have to worry about every possible combination of the events. Furthermore the constructor can build in some physical constraints, which will allow certain actions for the beings, but will not allow others. (This is also possible, but not necessary for option #1.)

3) Option number three. Similar to option number 2, but without building in guidelines. Instead of giving the beings some guidelines, which allow the creatures to chose from among certain options, but not allow for choosing others (which the creator definitely does not want them to select), the constructor only creates a few physical constraints, but allows the creatures to make almost any other choices. In other words, he gives much more freedom to the creatures than in option number two. Instead of built-in guidelines he issues commandments, and tells the creatures which actions are acceptable and which ones are not acceptable. These commandments are always there for the beings, along with the rewards and repercussions. The commandments are crystal clear, no ambiguity in them. The beings can always see them. This method is inferior to option #2. It relies on voluntary acceptance of the commandments, so it is possible that some creatures will follow them and others will not. To compensate for that, the constructor promises rewards for following the commandments and promises repercussions for violating them. If these rewards and repercussions would immediately be visible to the creatures, the outcome of the method would be somewhat similar to option #2. Eventually the creatures would follow the commandments, having seen the immediate value of following them, and the immediate punishment for violating them. But this method would not yield the desired results on the short run. There would be fluctuations.

4) Option number 4. Somewhat similar to option number 3, but the constructor does not make his commandments visible. At one time he issues them, and then relies on the creatures to remember them. The commandments are not even clear-cut, they can be interpreted different ways. The rewards and the punishments are not visible either. The life of those beings who follow the commandments is just about the same as the life of those who violate them. In other words, there is no self-correcting feedback mechanism built in the system. As a consequence of this design, the system will not adhere to to the constructor’s ideals, either on the short run, or on the long run.

And there is one more drawback to options #3 and #4. The creator must reveal itself to the creation. And that is extremely cruel. To make the beings aware of their hopeless inferiority; to make them know that they are at the mercy of the creator, who can do whatever it wants to do with them; that there is no appeal to anyone to curb the creator’s whim is just about the most cruel setup imaginable.

Guess what? Which is the system in our world? It is obviously number 4. A very sloppy design, with the obvious results. And this is the world which was supposed to be result of the design of an omnimax deity, who is maximally wise? Come on.

 

[st_felicity]

I’m sorry, but your hubris in expecting you can fit God in the neat little box of your human comprehension astounds me. I know you will simply dismiss my comments as your “fallacy of special pleading,” but really–you should consider your own erroneous logical methodology.
Among your many…
skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Ignorance
skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity
skepticwiki.org/index.php/God_of_the_Gaps_Fallacy
skepticwiki.org/index.php/Confirmation_Bias
skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moving_the_Goalposts

Let’s consider a constructor who wishes to design and create a very complex system. He plans to create many beings in that system, some limited resources that those beings can use and a build a life for themselves. Since the resources are limited, and the number of the beings can grow, there will be some conflicts over the resources.

skepticwiki.org/index.php/Cherry-Picking
skepticwiki.org/index.php/Strawman

This constructor has some goals, one among them is to build a stable, but not static system. He may also have some other goals, not particularly relevant for the moment. Also he has some configurations in mind which he definitely does not want in his system. Furthermore he does not want to be bothered by constantly overlooking and directing every part of the system every instant, so he plans the system dynamics to be self-sustaining.

Again–
You cherry pick the premise to argue a strawman.

This is not what theological perspectives claim of God.

And there is one more drawback to options #3 and #4. The creator must reveal itself to the creation. And that is extremely cruel. To make the beings aware of their hopeless inferiority; to make them know that they are at the mercy of the creator, who can do whatever it wants to do with them; that there is no appeal to anyone to curb the creator’s whim is just about the most cruel setup imaginable.

skepticwiki.org/index.php/Poisoning_the_Well

Guess what? Which is the system in our world? It is obviously number 4. A very sloppy design, with the obvious results. And this is the world which was supposed to be result of the design of an omnimax deity, who is maximally wise? Come on.

skepticwiki.org/index.php/Affirming_the_Consequent

As a side note unrelated to your personal fallacious argumentation, It bugs me how the sources for examples of fallacies always use ones that attempt to discredit people with religious convictions. Atheists and agnostics commit logical errors as often, but the examples given rarely highlight that. The creators of the examples seem guilty of skepticwiki.org/index.php/Selection_Bias in my opinion

 

[Spock]

I’m sorry, but your hubris in expecting you can fit God in the neat little box of your human comprehension astounds me.

Everything I say about God comes from you, the apologists. Whatever I know about God is the result of “your hubris of your human comprehension”. If you don’t like it, you can do two things, either make your presentation of God more rational, or leave me alone. I would prefer the former, in which case I would gain another conversation partner (fortunately I have quite a few!), but I will settle for the latter.

 

[tonyrey]

The commandments are not even clear-cut, they can be interpreted different ways. The rewards and the punishments are not visible either. The life of those beings who follow the commandments is just about the same as the life of those who violate them. In other words, there is no self-correcting feedback mechanism built in the system. As a consequence of this design, the system will not adhere to to the constructor’s ideals, either on the short run, or on the long run.

1. What are the commandments which cover **every **contingency in life?
2. How would these hypothetical commandments be communicated to everyone?
3. How does the hypothetical self-correcting feedback mechanism function?
4. Why do you assume the Creator is cruel?
5. What are your hypothetical creator’s ideals?

 

[Spock]

1. What are the commandments which cover **every **contingency in life?
2. How would these hypothetical commandments be communicated to everyone?
3. How does the hypothetical self-correcting feedback mechanism function?
4. Why do you assume the Creator is cruel?
5. What are your hypothetical creator’s ideals?

1. They do not have to cover every contingency, only the ones which are important to the creator.
2. Simple. By having the creator issue and re-issue them periodically to very generation, so that there cannot be any ambiguity. None of the created beings can have an excuse that they never knew about them.
3. Explained. By giving the rewards and punishments whenever they are merited. There is no delay, when the commandments are followed, the reward is given, when the commandments are disobeyed, a swift punishment follows. Just like training a dog.
4. Explained. It is cruel to notify the created beings about their inferiority and tell them that they are powerless in the face of the creator’s power.
5. They can be whatever the creator wants.

 

[st_felicity]

Everything I say about God comes from you, the apologists.

Obviously you either (1) misunderstand what “the apologists” are claiming, (2) you are purposefully misrepresenting what has been claimed, or (3) you are using poor sources as to what the beliefs of the Catholic Church are. I can’t speak for all Christians, but the Catholic Church has this nifty thing called the Catechism that is fully sourced and cross referenced. We also have a hierarchal body of “teachers” that can evaluate difficult questions and answer them with authority.

The Church has sound logic that has been explored in detail for 2000+ years. Of course there have been disagreements, but when she states something definitively, you can bet your bumpkiss there is nothing logically fallacious in her reasoning.

 

[st_felicity]

Let’s just consider your 1st line, and compare it to the 1st line of the Catholic Catechism, shall we?

Let’s consider a constructor who wishes to design and create a very complex system.

Catholic Catechism:

#1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/prologue.html

Can you see how you start off with a strawman argument? Catholicism does not claim that God willed creation from a desire or a “wish” for anything.

 

[st_felicity]

Here IS what the Catechism sources for a definition of the nature of God:
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

CANON 1

Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body. The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.

And finally, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God made flesh by the entire Trinity, conceived with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost of Mary ever Virgin, made true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, pointed out more clearly the way of life. Who according to His divinity is immortal and impassable, according to His humanity was made passable and mortal, suffered on the cross for the salvation of the human race, and being dead descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both; He will come at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and will render to the reprobate and to the elect according to their works. Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.

The reason I include this is because often, God is presented as “desiring” all to come to Him. That is a limitation of human language in expressing the infinitely ineffable–it is NOT a defect in God’s nature–rather, it is a defect of our nature.

 

[tonyrey]

1. What are your hypothetical creator’s ideals?

What are they?

1. Simple. By having the creator issue and re-issue them periodically to very generation, so that there cannot be any ambiguity. None of the created beings can have an excuse that they never knew about them.

How would they be issued?

1. Explained. By giving the rewards and punishments whenever they are merited. There is no delay, when the commandments are followed, the reward is given, when the commandments are disobeyed, a swift punishment follows. Just like training a dog.

Precisely how would the rewards and punishments be administered?

1. Explained. It is cruel to notify the created beings about their inferiority and tell them that they are powerless in the face of the creator’s power.

The mere fact that the Creator is the Creator implies that He is superior - which would be absurd and dishonest to conceal. It is also unnecessary because the immense value of life reveals His love for us.

1. They can be whatever the creator wants.

Far too vague!

 

[tonyrey]

4) Option number 4. The rewards and the punishments are not visible either. The life of those beings who follow the commandments is just about the same as the life of those who violate them. In other words, there is no self-correcting feedback mechanism built in the system. As a consequence of this design, the system will not adhere to to the constructor’s ideals, either on the short run, or on the long run.

There is a feedback mechanism recognised long ago in the Greek and Indian concepts of Nemesis and Karma respectively. In the long run our virtues and vices incur their own rewards and punishments. It does not pay to be evil…

 

[Spock]

1. What are they?
2. How would they be issued?
3. Precisely how would the rewards and punishments be administered?
4. The mere fact that the Creator is the Creator implies that He is superior - which would be absurd and dishonest to conceal. It is also unnecessary because the immense value of life reveals His love for us.
5. Far too vague!

1. Irrelevant. I am speaking of the general principles of designing a complex system.
2. Irrelevant. According to the level of the beings, so they can understand them.
3. Irrelevant. According to the nature of the rewards and the punishments and according to the nature of the beings, so they will know that a reward was given, or a punishment was administered. Did you ever try to train a dog? And bring up a child? The methods will be similar, but they must account for the differences in the dog and the child. The reward or the punishment do not have to come “immediately”, but the delay cannot exceed the memory span of the beings, so they can make a connection and learn from their mistakes. The idea of the punishment occurring at the time, when the beings cannot learn from it any longer, changes the punishment from a teaching tool into sheer revenge. As it is displayed in the Christian belief, where the punishment (hell) happens, when the guilty ones can no longer use the experience to learn from it.
4. Obviously the creator is superior. By revealing his existence he will attempt to elicit a response. Also, by declaring his existence he violates and disturbs the integrity of the system, thereby creating a measurement problem. Whether the creator “loves” his creatures is not relevant. Some may love them, others may not. And you can take off the capitalization of the creator. I am speaking of any creator, and if there is a similarity between this creator and God, it is just an unfortunate coincidence (I mean, unfortunate for God).
5. Intentionally left vague. No matter what the ideals are, the principles of design are the same.

There is a feedback mechanism recognised long ago in the Greek and Indian concepts of Nemesis and Karma respectively. In the long run our virtues and vices incur their own rewards and punishments. It does not pay to be evil…

A typical example of an ill-designed feedback loop. First, it is unreliable, and simply not true. Sometimes it does pay to deviate from the issued commandments, both on the short run and on the long run. Especially if the commandments are nonsensical. Second, one mysticism cannot be supported by referring to another.

 

[tonyrey]

1. I am speaking of the general principles of designing a complex system.

A typical example of an ill-designed feedback loop. First, it is unreliable, and simply not true. Sometimes it does pay to deviate from the issued commandments, both on the short run and on the long run.

Please give a precise example of when it does pay.

Especially if the commandment is nonsensical.

Please give a precise example of nonsensical commandment.

Second, one mysticism cannot be supported by referring to another.

Nemesis and Karma are not forms of mysticism but verifiable facts based on concrete evidence of the psychological effects of egoism and unselfishness, courage and cowardice, greed and temperance, pride and humility, laziness and diligence, love and hate. Hubris in particular is a most pernicious vice…

[/QUOTE]

 

[The_Exodus]

Let’s consider a constructor who wishes to design and create a very complex system.

If this is a metaphor of Christianity, you here start off needing a bit of clarification. God indeed (freely) wished to design a system, call it the universe. But, how is he guided in making it? A builder does not set out to build a house unless he first has knowledge in his mind. God doesn’t blindly create just any given “complex” system, nor does he create it for the sole purpose of it being complex. He creates it in order to display his goodness in it. Knowing his own being through his intellect, which is goodness as such, he loves it and wills to manifest it in the universe.

spock:

Furthermore he does not want to be bothered by constantly overlooking and directing every part of the system every instant, so he plans the system dynamics to be self-sustaining. What are his options for the beings he wants to put into the system?

This is off the mark as well. God cannot create a “self-sustaining” universe, in which it doesn’t need him in order to exist. This is because it would be an absurdity, for every created thing needs to be held in being at all times by the creator. Otherwise, you would posit God moving what in itself needs not be moved - a contradiction. Or a contingency which is not contingent.

I have not had the time to examine your options, but, seeing these two points that needed to be corrected, I felt I should point them out. They will probably help you better formulate your options.

 

[Spock]

If this is a metaphor of Christianity, you here start off needing a bit of clarification. God indeed (freely) wished to design a system, call it the universe. But, how is he guided in making it? A builder does not set out to build a house unless he first has knowledge in his mind. God doesn’t blindly create just any given “complex” system, nor does he create it for the sole purpose of it being complex. He creates it in order to display his goodness in it. Knowing his own being through his intellect, which is goodness as such, he loves it and wills to manifest it in the universe.

Fine. I did not specify the constructor’s final goals to keep the conversation as open as possible. You can use these stipulations, if you want to.

This is off the mark as well. God cannot create a “self-sustaining” universe, in which it doesn’t need him in order to exist. This is because it would be an absurdity, for every created thing needs to be held in being at all times by the creator.

That is somewhat new to me. Of course I heard about the “sustaining cause” argument. So you say that there are no “natural laws”, rather God must keep every particle in its proper place and maintain its momentum so the universe will not collapse into nothingness? If I go out on the balcony to have a smoke, does God have to hold the molecules of the balcony in place, so I will not fall through it? When I take a drag of the cigarette, does God have to mix the smoke with the surrounding air? Does God have to form every snowflake to create that hexagonal pattern? Could God create snowflakes with five-fold symmetry? If we make a decision, do we “force” God to move the matter according to what we want? Or are we just puppets, who play out God’s thoughts? I don’t think that the Catholic Church agrees with you. I most certainly do not.

I have not had the time to examine your options, but, seeing these two points that needed to be corrected, I felt I should point them out. They will probably help you better formulate your options.

Since you admittedly did not read the whole post, how can say that my options are not well-formed? However, read them and come back, if you want to.

 

[The_Exodus]

That is somewhat new to me. Of course I heard about the “sustaining cause” argument. So you say that there are no “natural laws”, rather God must keep every particle in its proper place and maintain its momentum so the universe will not collapse into nothingness?

Yes. God is the source of all being. No created thing has “being in itself.”

Understanding this concept is key to understanding the arguments for God’s existence.

spock:

If I go out on the balcony to have a smoke, does God have to hold the molecules of the balcony in place, so I will not fall through it?

Yes. He also has to maintain you in being as well, or you would cease to exist.

spock:

If we make a decision, do we “force” God to move the matter according to what we want? Or are we just puppets, who play out God’s thoughts?

We can in no way “surprise” God or determine him, except insofar as he has already prepared things for us in his eternal decree: i.e. predestination.

spock:

I don’t think that the Catholic Church agrees with you. I most certainly do not.

This is all very common Thomistic theology, and is supported by the Church.

newadvent.org/summa/1104.htm#article1

spock:

Since you admittedly did not read the whole post, how can say that my options are not well-formed? However, read them and come back, if you want to.

A small error in the beginning leads to great errors in the end. I am presently going to read over them though and respond.

 

[The_Exodus]

1) Option number one. He can build the beings to be fully determined. He can give them a detailed “program” which would allow the beings to do exactly the one action, which is the desired action by the constructor. The problem with this method is that the programming must account for every possible scenario which the beings will encounter. If the system under consideration is very complex, this solution becomes impractical and maybe even impossible. The constructor must foresee every possible event, every possible permutation and combination of the events, and must program for it. Due to the limitation of the beings to be constructed this will only work for a simple system, but not for a complex one. No matter how large the processing capacity of the beings, it will stay limited, and as the system grows, its complexity will outgrow the abilities of the beings.

I like this option, since it allows for “foresight” on the part of the constructor. It doesn’t seem to me to follow however that “if the system under consideration is very complex, this solution becomes impractical and maybe even impossible.” If God is of infinite intellect, why would this be so?

2) Option number two. The constructor can plan a self-regulating system into the beings. The beings will have certain options to choose from in every scenario they encounter. Instead of ironclad rules, he constructor can build in guidelines to help the decision making process. The beings will have freedom to choose from among the options allowed by the guidelines, but they will be unable to choose an option which is deemed undesirable by the constructor. The advantage of this solution is obvious: instead of having myriads of rules, there will be some guidelines. Much fewer to program for. Also this method is flexible; the constructor does not have to worry about every possible combination of the events. Furthermore the constructor can build in some physical constraints, which will allow certain actions for the beings, but will not allow others. (This is also possible, but not necessary for option #1.)

This is good, though a little vague. I think most Christians would like this option and call it “general providence.”

3) Option number three. Similar to option number 2, but without building in guidelines. Instead of giving the beings some guidelines, which allow the creatures to chose from among certain options, but not allow for choosing others (which the creator definitely does not want them to select), the constructor only creates a few physical constraints, but allows the creatures to make almost any other choices. In other words, he gives much more freedom to the creatures than in option number two. Instead of built-in guidelines he issues commandments, and tells the creatures which actions are acceptable and which ones are not acceptable. These commandments are always there for the beings, along with the rewards and repercussions. The commandments are crystal clear, no ambiguity in them. The beings can always see them. This method is inferior to option #2. It relies on voluntary acceptance of the commandments, so it is possible that some creatures will follow them and others will not. To compensate for that, the constructor promises rewards for following the commandments and promises repercussions for violating them. If these rewards and repercussions would immediately be visible to the creatures, the outcome of the method would be somewhat similar to option #2. Eventually the creatures would follow the commandments, having seen the immediate value of following them, and the immediate punishment for violating them. But this method would not yield the desired results on the short run. There would be fluctuations.

Well, this seems like option number 2, but with “greater freedom” and commandments (not sure how these are different than guidlines, but lets leave that be) with “rewards and repercussions.”

4) Option number 4. Somewhat similar to option number 3, but the constructor does not make his commandments visible. At one time he issues them, and then relies on the creatures to remember them. The commandments are not even clear-cut, they can be interpreted different ways. The rewards and the punishments are not visible either. The life of those beings who follow the commandments is just about the same as the life of those who violate them. In other words, there is no self-correcting feedback mechanism built in the system. As a consequence of this design, the system will not adhere to to the constructor’s ideals, either on the short run, or on the long run.

So the difference here seems to be in the ambiguity of the commandments, and the ambiguity of the rewards and punishments attached to them.

spock:

And there is one more drawback to options #3 and #4. The creator must reveal itself to the creation. And that is extremely cruel. To make the beings aware of their hopeless inferiority; to make them know that they are at the mercy of the creator, who can do whatever it wants to do with them; that there is no appeal to anyone to curb the creator’s whim is just about the most cruel setup imaginable.

Well I’m not sure this follows at all. There cannot be sin without a knowing violation of commands - which indicates that are known when violated; although as a punishment for sin can be ignorance and thus further sin. Also, it is not at all clear that there is ambiguity in punishments and rewards. In some situations there may be - think of the rich man who passes by the poor on his way to his private jet etc. - but in many others I can think of examples where people without God and without religion suffer greatly. Peace is a gift from God, and is often given to pious people.

 

[The_Exodus]

spock:

Guess what? Which is the system in our world? It is obviously number 4. A very sloppy design, with the obvious results. And this is the world which was supposed to be result of the design of an omnimax deity, who is maximally wise? Come on.

The truth is, you haven’t really offered an accurate option to choose from. The traditional, Thomistic option would run something like this.

1. God is the greatest good - indeed is goodness itself - and so he loves himself infinitely. He, wanting to display that goodness and make it apparent, desired to create a universe. He freely chose to create this universe, knowing that it would add nothing to his being or perfection or goodness, but would rather give to the creation. Out of the various types of universe he could make, there were many “good” ones which he chose not to make, such as universes with no evil in which all creatures did good, or even universes with no good in which all creatures did evil. Each of these universes would have some element of God’s goodness missing, whether that be his mercy in pardoning evildoers, or his justice in punishing them, or his right to be loved above all things, or his love for wanting to give created beings a reward infinitely above what they could ever earn. Thus, in his eternal wisdom, mercy, justice, and liberty, he decreed, before the foundation of the world - that is, before there was any world in any ontological, not temporal, respect (when the world was not yet in any way, not even thought of) - he, willing the means simultaneously with the end, chose to create the current universe, with all its parts, down to the smallest detail. He permitted some creatures to do evil and fail, and others he infallibly drew to himself by grace sweet and strong. When everything is complete, God will pronounce judgment on his creation, and eternally display his glory in that judgment in the life to come.

 

[Spock]

I like this option, since it allows for “foresight” on the part of the constructor. It doesn’t seem to me to follow however that “if the system under consideration is very complex, this solution becomes impractical and maybe even impossible.” If God is of infinite intellect, why would this be so?

Ah, a misunderstanding. I thought I made it clear that it is the limited nature of the created beings is what makes it impossible. It is impossible to “cram” all the necessary rules into the mind of a limited being. The number of choices keeps growing as the world gets more and more complex, and eventually it will outgrow the processing capacity of the beings. This is why a strongly programmed robot (the one without some internal freedom) is not a viable option.

This is good, though a little vague. I think most Christians would like this option and call it “general providence.”

I am sure we have a misunderstanding here as well. Here the beings have a limited program instilled into them, and some amount of freedom, too. They are free to choose any option, which is in accordance with the constructor’s goals. Those possible options which would violate the constructor’s goals do not ever occur to them. For example: there is a limited resource, and two beings need to share it. One possible option might be to split the resource. The percentage of the sharing does not need to be determined, there is freedom in deciding the “proper” percentage. Another possible option would be that the stronger being takes all the resource by force. But according to their programming this option never occurs to the beings. They have a limited freedom, but that limitation comes from within. Just like a very good person would never consider the option of robbing a hungry child of his food, even if he is hungry himself.

Well, this seems like option number 2, but with “greater freedom” and commandments (not sure how these are different than guidlines, but lets leave that be) with “rewards and repercussions.”

There is a huge difference, and that is what makes the scenario very different. The guidelines are part of the beings. The commandments are external. Taking the example from above, the hungry adult is free to contemplate to rob the hungry child, and only the fear of repercussions might restrain him (or maybe not).

So the difference here seems to be in the ambiguity of the commandments, and the ambiguity of the rewards and punishments attached to them.

Almost. The fact that the rewards and repercussions occur when the reward and the punishment can no longer be considered a teaching tool, makes them useless. The fact that evil people can commit their acts, and no visible punishment is forthcoming makes the commandments easy to “shrug off”.

Well I’m not sure this follows at all. There cannot be sin without a knowing violation of commands - which indicates that are known when violated; although as a punishment for sin can be ignorance and thus further sin. Also, it is not at all clear that there is ambiguity in punishments and rewards. In some situations there may be - think of the rich man who passes by the poor on his way to his private jet etc. - but in many others I can think of examples where people without God and without religion suffer greatly. Peace is a gift from God, and is often given to pious people.

Sin is a religious concept. I am presenting a non-religious scenario. And so far you did not present any argument against the idea that revelation is cruel, because it makes the creatures aware that they are created, and they are at the mercy of creator, who can do whatever he wants with them - according to the creator’s whim.

By the way, there is no “fifth” option.

Option #1 is fully programmed robots.
Option #2 is loosely programmed beings, who have a limited option from choose from among desired behavioral schemes, but only those.
Option #3 is a very loosely programmed beings, who have no internal “breaks” built into them, which would prevent them from choosing an “undesired” option - but at least the reward/punishment would “prod” them into the behavior that the creator considers “good”.
And option #4 is ineffective to “guide” the beings into a behavior which is valued by the creator, due to the lack the “feedback mechanism”.

 

[Spock]

This is all very common Thomistic theology, and is supported by the Church.

It is sheer nonsense. If a builder makes a house, the builder’s continued existence is not a prerequisite for the house’s continued existence.

 

[The_Exodus]

It is sheer nonsense. If a builder makes a house, the builder’s continued existence is not a prerequisite for the house’s continued existence.

Did you read the article I linked? St. Thomas addresses this objection specifically.

Objection 2. Further… a created agent, even after ceasing to act, can cause its effect to be preserved in being; thus the house continues to stand after the builder has ceased to build; and water remains hot for some time after the fire has ceased to heat…

Reply to Objection 2. God cannot grant to a creature to be preserved in being after the cessation of the Divine influence: as neither can He make it not to have received its being from Himself. For the creature needs to be preserved by God in so far as the being of an effect depends on the cause of its being. So that there is no comparison with an agent that is not the cause of ‘being’ but only of “becoming.”

Thus, the builder is not the cause of the house’s being, or what holds it in existence, but only of its becoming (from pre-existing beings) a house.