The constructor and his world

[The_Exodus]

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.

Cruelty implies unjust or unwise punishment. On the Christian supposition, there is no punishment which is either unwise or unjust. You may claim the opposite is the case as loud as you want, but you would only be attacking a straw man, a caricature, and not the actual Christian theology. Thus, your accusation holds no parity.

spock:

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

All 4 of your options fail to understand and thus to articulate the Christian understanding of reality, so the 5th option proceeds from necessity, as it were.

Option 1 fails in that it limits the contructors knowledge, which breaks down when things become “too complex.” (If this is implied of a created being, it fails to show any parity also.)

Sed contra - the Christian view holds God to be omniscient.

Option 2 is actually the closest to the Christian understanding of providence, though you have failed to give an account of evil, and so it is incomplete.

Sed contra - the Christian view holds that evil exists and is permitted by God to occur

Option 3 is very close to option 2, except its conclusion seems to come from nowhere, without any logical connection to the body of the paragraph: “But this method would not yield desirable results in the short run. There would be fluctuations.” Is this what you think the Christian understanding is of God’s providence, or are you trying to offer an alternative? At any rate, I can make no sense - whether this be a caricature or an honest attempt - of the conclusion of option 3.

Sed contra - The Christian view holds that God is omnipotent, and thus he does not make a creation with “undesirable fluctuations.”

Option 4 fails in many respects, because a) it assumes his commands are “invisible”; and also b) it assumes that “corrective feedback” must be “visible” in terms which you have not yet specified. You haven’t shown that corrective feedback even needs to be part of the system (for the constructor could have made a “one and done” system in which, after the creature turns away from God, that’s it, there is no chance for feedback), nor have you shown under what mode such a system must be “visible” (I would contend that such a system IS visible, but not to those who are themselves continually sinning. Those with eyes can see, the blind cannot.)

Sed contra - The Christian view holds that commands are visible and understandable, else sin would never occur, since it is a knowing violating or depature from the Divine Rule. It also holds that the universe is a system which, in the end (or, from God’s point of view, from eternity), has the ultimate “feedback” system. It also holds that much of that feedback can be observed here on earth (though not all), in that the righteous are filled with peace, which is far from the wicked.

 

[Spock]

All 4 of your options fail to understand and thus to articulate the Christian understanding of reality, so the 5th option proceeds from necessity, as it were.

I really don’t care about the Christian “understanding” of reality. I am presenting a non-theological analysis of complex system design, and the possible methods of making sure that the system will go in accordance to the constructor’s desires. If you wish to address my points, please do it without referring to Christian “suppositions”.

 

[davidv]

I really don’t care about the Christian “understanding” of reality. I am presenting a non-theological analysis of complex system design, and the possible methods of making sure that the system will go in accordance to the constructor’s desires. If you wish to address my points, please do it without referring to Christian “suppositions”.

Since this is a Catholic apologetics Forum, this restriction seems irrational.

 

[Spock]

Since this is a Catholic apologetics Forum, this restriction seems irrational.

This is not a Catholic apologetics forum, it is a philosophy forum. Major difference.

 

[davidv]

This is not a Catholic apologetics forum, it is a philosophy forum. Major difference.

Correction: Note the path to philosophy. “Catholic Answers Forums>Forums>Apologetics>Philosophy”

 

[The_Exodus]

I am presenting a non-theological analysis of complex system design…

Splendid. Then it is self-admitted that your analysis does not seek to imitate or parody the Christian position. As such I see nothing wrong with you making your own hypothetical “constructor and his world” scenario.

 

[JDaniel]

Spock:

I’ve got a better one:

Option No. 5: The Creator builds the beings not so that they are fully determined, but, so that they are partially determined and partially not. He can freely permit the beings to self-regulate. He can provide them with a short-list of guidelines, otherwise known as Commandments, that sort of self-promulgate among the beings from then on. From that short-list, the beings can obtain additional derivative commandments, as appear reasonable to the beings. He can list the punishments and rewards and leave the list with a group of his followers and command that they take that list to the rest of the beings from thence forward. That would be simple task, as there are only two: one punishment and one reward. He can allow the beings to set up their own systems of punishments and rewards, which lets the beings get a good sense of what right and wrong are, and what reward and punishment might really be like. Then, he can let the beings make their own mistakes.

His purpose, if one can be ascribed to such a Creator, might be to re-populate his realm after the fall of some of his followers. He can allow them to self-weed: they can select for themselves where they want to go. He twists no arms, nor in any way does he force them to choose one direction over the other. He promulgates what each path has in store at each respective end – easy since there are only two. He further tells the beings that there exists a tiny secret that if understood and extrapolated, will ensure that each will be part of the Elect. The secret he tells them is this: “to Love one another as I have Loved you.” Most of the beings notice that the prior list of Commandments seem to directly derive from this one, tiny secret. Most of the beings find this path not too difficult at all, but, a few find it nonsensical. The former group follows the path, the latter group does not.

The beings are given their life-times to come to understand that which is very simple. But, if that’s too hard, they can be given a simple methodology that can almost instantly rescinds all past detours down the lesser path. Further, he provides a system that instantly rewards the good path, by making it easier and easier to continue on that path. He can call this “Grace.” In so doing, he can bring the joy of inclusion to the Elect. He can let the Reprobate find the happiness of the Elect distasteful and counterfeit. But, since the Reprobate has never really tried it, he only understands what he wants to understand. All other options are irrelevant.

None of this complicates the system. It seems that only a few beings over-think it. In fact, many beings discover that there is no dishonor in joining the Elect. It is, in fact, what the creator might expect, but, knows he won’t get from all of his beings. The beings also discover that there’s no embarrassment in joining the Elect. There really seems to be no rational reasons not to join them.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

Splendid. Then it is self-admitted that your analysis does not seek to imitate or parody the Christian position.

As the usual disclaimer says: “All the characters in this book are fictional. Any resemblance to actual persons, living, or dead is purely coincidental”. Of course I cannot help if there is a strong resemblance between some of the options and the Christian belief.

Also, don’t forget that abstract analysis is a wonderful method to analyze reality. Mathematics does not deal with economic concepts (for example), but the mathematical models can be applied to scenarios of economics. I do not seek to “imitate or parody”, but I seek to “describe” the Christian position.

 

[Spock]

I’ve got a better one:

Option No. 5: The Creator builds the beings not so that they are fully determined, but, so that they are partially determined and partially not. He can freely permit the beings to self-regulate. He can provide them with a short-list of guidelines, otherwise known as Commandments, that sort of self-promulgate among the beings from then on. From that short-list, the beings can obtain additional derivative commandments, as appear reasonable to the beings. He can list the punishments and rewards and leave the list with a group of his followers and command that they take that list to the rest of the beings from thence forward. That would be simple task, as there are only two: one punishment and one reward. He can allow the beings to set up their own systems of punishments and rewards, which lets the beings get a good sense of what right and wrong are, and what reward and punishment might really be like. Then, he can let the beings make their own mistakes.

His purpose, if one can be ascribed to such a Creator, might be to re-populate his realm after the fall of some of his followers. He can allow them to self-weed: they can select for themselves where they want to go. He twists no arms, nor in any way does he force them to choose one direction over the other. He promulgates what each path has in store at each respective end – easy since there are only two. He further tells the beings that there exists a tiny secret that if understood and extrapolated, will ensure that each will be part of the Elect. The secret he tells them is this: “to Love one another as I have Loved you.” Most of the beings notice that the prior list of Commandments seem to directly derive from this one, tiny secret. Most of the beings find this path not too difficult at all, but, a few find it nonsensical. The former group follows the path, the latter group does not.

The beings are given their life-times to come to understand that which is very simple. But, if that’s too hard, they can be given a simple methodology that can almost instantly rescinds all past detours down the lesser path. Further, he provides a system that instantly rewards the good path, by making it easier and easier to continue on that path. He can call this “Grace.” In so doing, he can bring the joy of inclusion to the Elect. He can let the Reprobate find the happiness of the Elect distasteful and counterfeit. But, since the Reprobate has never really tried it, he only understands what he wants to understand. All other options are irrelevant.

None of this complicates the system. It seems that only a few beings over-think it. In fact, many beings discover that there is no dishonor in joining the Elect. It is, in fact, what the creator might expect, but, knows he won’t get from all of his beings. The beings also discover that there’s no embarrassment in joining the Elect. There really seems to be no rational reasons not to join them.

Sorry, my friend, this is option #4, rehashed. The superficial difference is that you stipulate “one” group as the “elect”, while in reality there are many groups, who all claim to be the elect. And the reward and the punishment are still “invisible”, so there is no feedback mechanism, which would guide the “unelected”.

 

[st_felicity]

As the usual disclaimer says: “All the characters in this book are fictional. Any resemblance to actual persons, living, or dead is purely coincidental”. Of course I cannot help if there is a strong resemblance between some of the options and the Christian belief.

Also, don’t forget that abstract analysis is a wonderful method to analyze reality. Mathematics does not deal with economic concepts (for example), but the mathematical models can be applied to scenarios of economics.

Except that you already explicitly discussed your “hypothetical” in terms of Christian theology, AND did not make any clarification when presented with the fact it was being read as such and actually responded with “fine.”

…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.

Exodus:

If this is a metaphor of Christianity, you here start off needing a bit of clarification. …

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.

I do not seek to “imitate or parody”, but I seek to “describe” the Christian position.

So you admit the strawman fallacy you repeatedly commit. Good.

 

[The_Exodus]

I do not seek to “imitate or parody”, but I seek to “describe” the Christian position.

I don’t understand how one doesn’t seek to “imitate” a position, but only “describe” it. If you are building a mock, supposedly Christian representation or model of reality, you are imitating it, even if such a model is descriptive only.

But, since you’ve conceded that you did not intend to imitate the Christian understanding of reality (which seems rather odd and useless), then I see no misunderstandings to correct.

 

[david_friol_1]

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?

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.

Hey Spock
Have you been playing with your Legos today! LOL

Since you really were not asking a question here I will be brief. I think the gist of what you seem to be pointing out is similar to the old unspoken argument: “I could have done a better job than your God has!” To which I can only say "Please show me! No, really, create/construct something even on a much smaller scale if you like, in any of 1-4 examples that you would like and then invite me over for dinner, I’ll bring some beverages and apparantly be awed by you own omnimax abilities."LOL

Speaking of that, thank you for telling me what omnimax was I never heard that before, I first thought it was a really big tampon or something (no offense ladies).

God bless you for your efforts my friend!