Theist and atheist metaphysics

[ateista]

Fair enough, since the term can mean several different things. But basically classical theism means the theistic philosophy developed by Christians, Jews, and Muslims on the basis of classical Greek philosophy (primarily Plato and Aristotle, or more precisely Aristotle read through the lens of Neo-Platonism). When I use the term I’m thinking first and foremost of St. Thomas Aquinas, but also of the Church Fathers (Augustine, the Cappadocians, etc.), other medieval Christian philosophers (Anselm, Bonaventure), and also Jewish and Muslim thinkers (Maimonides, Avicenna, etc.).

That is a good definition. But theism cannot be narrowed down to this variety, even though most believers on these boards subscribe to it.

You are on a Catholic board, not a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalists and other Protestants may not care about classical theism.

Maybe, but they are Christians nontheless, and their view about God is not that different from yours.

But most of us here, whether Catholic or not, start from classical presuppositions. If you aren’t going to argue against classical theistic metaphysics, you have nothing to say that is of interest to us (with regard to the philosophical question of God’s existence). At least I can speak for myself, but I suspect that I speak for most of the Catholics on the forum as well.

I hope no one appears to force you to participate.

That is so loose as to be meaningless.

Why would it be meaningless? The term “god” is supposed to describe some beings, who are either “supernatural” (metaphysics) or “transcendant” (epistemology). There can be large variations in the attributes ascribed to these beings, that is true. But they all have some attributes which are beyond nature. There is nothing meaningless about the term (though I consider the set which these entities belong to an empty set).

We can’t possibly have a discussion on this basis. It’s like saying that you want to discuss the question of whether unicorns exist, and then defining “unicornism” as the belief in “either real or stuffed unicorns.” There is far more difference between God and a god (in the point of view of classical theism) than between a real unicorn and a stuffed one.

But at least the stuffed unicorns exist, don’t they? It is true that the Christian God is supposed to have many attributes which are not found in the other gods. It might be interesting to explore just how meaningful those terms are.

I would love to see a thread about it - but I am not sure if it would fit into the Philosophy forum, and I don’t read the other ones.

However for the sake of this discussion I am trying to be as generic as possible. All the gods invented by humanity have some supernatural powers ascribed to them and all are supposed to have played part in the creation of the world.

The belief in “gods” isn’t a metaphysical belief at all. A “god” as you’re defining it appears to be just any superhuman entity.

Not simply “superhuman”. It is a “supernatural” entity. And that is a huge difference.

You cut them out altogether.

Of course not. Metaphysics deals with the question: “what exists primarily?”.

The materialistic answer is that “STEM” (space, time, energy-matter) exist primarily, and the “spirit” exists as the manifestation of highly organized matter.

The theist (especially the classical variety) answer is the exact opposite, it asserts that some non-material entity exists primarily and STEM was “created” by it.

That is the basic tenet of metaphysics.

As you defined theism above, that isn’t a common denominator at all. In many polytheistic mythologies, the gods just evolve along with the rest of the universe.

Well, those “gods” are not supernatural, are they? That is why I said that the term “god” is very loosely defined.

Depends on what you mean by “created” and what you mean by “world.” That’s why you have to start with the real metaphysical questions. If “creation” just means “fashioning a certain set of phenomena” (which seems to be what you mean by it) then it’s not a metaphysical question at all. As you point out, we can create in this sense.

That is an excellent question. I defined the term “world” as it is usually understood: as our universe or the Matrix. A closed unit of existence which is separated from its environment (if any). If there are any inhabitants (and why would anyone create a world without them?) it is an environment in which they dwell, exist, act and think. The outside (if exists) is not accessible to them.

Using the Matrix as an example, I showed that the “supernatural” part does not have to be taken in an absolute fashion, it is enough if the creator is “supernatural” vis-a-vis the created universe - which is obvious.

Therefore from the assumption that our universe was “created” none of the classical theism’s (I like your definition) assertions follow. The being(s) who created our universe (if it was indeed created) do not have to resemble the God of classical theism.

If you wish to estabish “God”, you have to argue further and deeper than just assert that he created our Universe.

Nevertheless, it is still interesting to ponder the relationship between the hypothetical creator and the created beings. That part of the discussion does not differentiate between a “regular” creator and “God”. And why should it? A creator is a creator is a creator. Now you may disagree with that. Naturally that is your right and prerogative.

 

[ateista]

If we did not communicate with them in any way and gave them no hint that there was something beyond their world, then I suppose they would be justified in not looking for us. But if they had anything akin to the curiosity of human beings, then it seems perfectly natural that they would look for their cause, us, and be thankful to us or at least in awe of us. But they wouldn’t owe this to us unless they felt that we had comunicated with them, blessed them, loved them, and let them know our requirements.

Very good! I agree with you. But let me make one remark: If there is no sign of the creator, then it is fruitless even to think about it. Sure, as idle curiosity it might come up, but the hypothesis should be discarded immediately.

Says you.
But billions of others think differently.

Sure. But the number of people who believe it is irrelevant. Just because many people believed that the Earth is flat it makes no difference.

They believe the signs of God are abundant. Not unmistakable signs, but signs nonetheless.

Since the signs can be explained in natural terms, the assumption of God is not necessary.

Some of us believe the signs are intentionally ambiguous so that our faith and free will can be preserved.

This kind of faith is not useful. And our free will to accept or reject God would not be impaired even if we knew that God exists. On the contrary, it would give relevance to the choice. To “love” someone whose very existence can be reasonably doubted is nonsense.

So can you tell me, if you were the creator of a world and you wanted your creations to serve you out of love, not force, what type of signs would you give them of your existence?

Unfortunately I cannot answer this to your satisfaction. Not because I want to avoid it, rather because the question does not apply. Nevertheless I will try to answer.

First, I would never create them. Second, if I did, I would never give any sign of my existence. I would not expect anything from my creation, least of all not “love”. The rest of my answer will be given as a response to your other points.

Why not?
If not for us, they’d have no life at all!

True. But saying that you indicate that in your opinion any existence is better than nonexistence. And I would very much like to know how do you plan to substantiate that? Obviously a happy, healty, successful life (even with some misfortune added to it) is better than nonexistence. But a life filled with pain, suffering, misery, sickness (even if there is some temporary relief) is not preferable to nonexistence.

Their world is all they know. Why should they assume our world is any better or that their own world could be better than it is?

They certainly could surmise that we are much more knowledgable and more powerful (not in the sense of power over them, but in the power that comes from knowledge). They could be envious and resentful that their existence is so much restricted than ours.

Why not? if we know bestt? We programmed them, gave them their existence and designed the laws of their world. If we choose to tell them how they can make their existence better, why wouldn’t they be smart to listen to us?

Why do you get to define them as burdens?
Maybe we are giving them rules to help them in the world we have designed for them.

Why?
If we stepped in every time and protected everyone from harm, how would they ever learn about the real world we had set up for them?

The world we set up for them includes oceans, mountains, fire, etc. How would they ever learn that fire burns if we stepped in and rescued them every time the fire got hot? Should our world not include mountains because someone might fall down them? Should it not include oceans because someone might drown?

Try to think “outside the box”. You assume that the creatures can “drown”. What if they were amphibians? You assume that the creatures can burn. What if they were fire-resistant?

All your objections can be overcome by careful planning. There would be no need to interfere, if their world would not contain “dangerous elements”. They could be just like the plants which do not need to “fight” for their sustenance, they could draw energy from the rays of the sun. If there would be no creatures with “ill will”, there would be no crime. There would be noo need to fight diseases if there were no dangerous micobes, etc, etc, etc…

That would not relegate them to idleness. The world of art would be open for them to create wonderful music, sculptures, etc. The world of science would be open to them to discover the intricacies how their world is “set up”.

You may say: “but that is Utopia!”. Sure… but what is wrong with utopia?

By the way, please read this as a continuation to your question above.

I’m having a hard time imagining your scenario. So much depends on why we would create this world to begin with.

Very good observation. Since we are not omniscient, it could be an experiment.

God gave us a world with natural law and order, so we can grow in knowledge and safety. We couldn’t grow if He was always stepping in to protect us.

Please read my remarks above.

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

Very good! I agree with you. But let me make one remark: If there is no sign of the creator, then it is fruitless even to think about it. Sure, as idle curiosity it might come up, but the hypothesis should be discarded immediately.

But it’s only your opinion that there’s no sign of a Creator.
Many people do see signs of one, and have for centuries.
For some of us, modern science gives even More of a reason to believe that a majestic Being must be behind all the intricate and eligant patterns and laws we see.
And not only that. There are many claims of personal, supernatural encounters, as well as claims of miracles, etc.
You really don’t think this God hypothesis has caught on and lasted for thousands of years for no reason, do you? There have been things right along that have fed it, strengthened it, and clarified it. Indeed some would say that the supernatural encounters Preceeded the hypotheses…

Since the signs can be explained in natural terms, the assumption of God is not necessary.

Maybe the signs by themselves don’t make the assumtion of God Necessary. But people have had experiences which they believe demand supernatural explanations.

This kind of faith is not useful.

Well, the God I serve seems to think it is very useful.
It is one of the main themes of the Bible.
For many, Proof that God exists would only result in a blind capitulation to power. No love involved. No reasoning or relating with this Being. Simply, “What do I gotta do to be on your good side?”
Apparently, God didn’t want that type of relationship with us.

And our free will to accept or reject God would not be impaired even if we knew that God exists.

Maybe not, in some cases. But it would still change the dynamics of the relationship. Most rational people would decide that serving this obvious God is the only reasonable thing to do.
Then, as you suggested above, they might become resentful of God’s rules, or wish He had done things differently…
So, God leaves it an open question. Those who wish to serve Him must Choose to do so… must Choose whether to believe.
Something drastic would change if the decision were forced upon us.

On the contrary, it would give relevance to the choice. To “love” someone whose very existence can be reasonably doubted is nonsense.

Not if the Someone is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator and God of the universe.
Every good parent will at some point test his children by seeing if they’ll obey, even when he’s not around. The parent knows that if he remains with the child, the child will merely obey because the powerful parent is there.
The goal is to get the child’s motivation to be more internal… out of respect for the parent and his values, and then adopting the values as his own.
Seems reasonable to me that God would operate in much the same way.

True. But saying that you indicate that in your opinion any existence is better than nonexistence. And I would very much like to know how do you plan to substantiate that? Obviously a happy, healty, successful life (even with some misfortune added to it) is better than nonexistence. But a life filled with pain, suffering, misery, sickness (even if there is some temporary relief) is not preferable to nonexistence.

I think the vast majority of people would disagree with you there…
If you really believe that, would you be willing to just go annihilate some of the 3rd World countries so that you could stop all the pain and suffering that goes on there?
If not, why not?
Because all life is precious?
Sure you can speculate that an all-powerful God could have left pain out of the equasion. But you really have no way of knowing what that kind of existence would really be like.
Kids who have everything handed to them on a silver platter are often very miserable people! They have no goals, no purpose; nothing to look forward to… They’re bored!
So now you can say God should eliminate boredom from the picture, too… or the need for goals… until everything that makes us human and gives us meaningful life is left out of the picture, and the speculation becomes meaningless.

Try to think “outside the box”. You assume that the creatures can “drown”. What if they were amphibians? You assume that the creatures can burn. What if they were fire-resistant?

All your objections can be overcome by careful planning. There would be no need to interfere, if their world would not contain “dangerous elements”. They could be just like the plants which do not need to “fight” for their sustenance, they could draw energy from the rays of the sun. If there would be no creatures with “ill will”, there would be no crime. There would be noo need to fight diseases if there were no dangerous micobes, etc, etc, etc…

That would not relegate them to idleness. The world of art would be open for them to create wonderful music, sculptures, etc. The world of science would be open to them to discover the intricacies how their world is “set up”.

Sounds like Heaven!
But would Heaven really be Heaven without our prior earthly experience? Could we really appreciate it? Or would we merely be spoiled brats, with no clue what we really had, yet jealous that we weren’t like God… Hmm, Adam and Eve come to mind. Seems that God took care of these speculations a long time ago…

You may say: “but that is Utopia!”. Sure… but what is wrong with utopia?

I just read this today on the First Things Blog
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1135

I’ll post the part that stood out in the next post.

Kim

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

First Things:

St. Thomas Aquinas posited the striking thought that for this world to be as good as it is, the existence of evil is necessary. Evil is not a “thing”—no substantial thing at all. Against the Muslims, Aquinas flatly rejected the centuries of Eastern philosophy that divided the world into good and evil, as if they were equal contestants, equally substantial and active and potent.

The Jewish Creator offered every woman and man in his creation his friendship, and in this way treated each as a free person, not as a slave. Such human liberty required God to create a world in which human beings can of their own deliberate choice turn away from the good. This is how Aquinas defined human sin: a considered and willful deviation from the good, an absence of the good, a deficiency.

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. The leaders of the Anglo-American Enlightenment believed that liberty was God’s underlying purpose in creating human beings, and in shaping the rest of creation accordingly. They believed that in the war between the Americans and the British in 1776, though both worshiped the same God, the God of liberty would favor those who fought for freedom, not against it.

A world in which liberty can flower must be a world of laws, regularities, and probabilities, but also a world of contingency, happenstance, serendipity, surprise, and suspense. All the stuff of a good story depends on creation being not just a world of iron logic and inflexible arithmetic, but also a world of immense crisscrossing variation and “blooming, buzzing profusion.”

Even the “angelic” light of advanced mathematics (so highly abstract and removed from corporeality) must in a world of liberty be constituted not only by arithmetic, geometry, and deductive reasoning, but also by the statistically random.

In such a world, there cannot be human freedom without the possibility of falling away from the good. Various forms of refusal and irresponsibility, and even the surrender of reason to spontaneity and passion, must with some high probability come into play. “If men were angels,” such probabilities might be nonexistent. But men are not angels, and therefore a free republic, built for men as they are, must be built for those who sometimes sin.

As Aquinas observed, if we begin our reflections with the world as it is, we learn that without human evil, the world’s goodness could not achieve the heights of nobility and compassion and love that it sometimes actually does.

From what we know of the world we live in, the Creator, it would seem, was no utopian, and his purpose was not to make a world solely for human pleasure, painlessness, and comfort. The world instead provides a tapestry of human experience, times of joy and times of trial—even a vale of sorrows—in which the golden thread of history is liberty.

 

[ateista]

Well, hard as I tried to keep this thread on track, it still went off on a tangent.

But it’s only your opinion that there’s no sign of a Creator.

Not just “mine”. Even the believers cannot agree what are the “signs”.

Many people do see signs of one, and have for centuries.
For some of us, modern science gives even More of a reason to believe that a majestic Being must be behind all the intricate and eligant patterns and laws we see.

So? What is the significance of their opinion?

And not only that. There are many claims of personal, supernatural encounters, as well as claims of miracles, etc.

Alleged personal revelations cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking. As far as I know even the CC does not require to give any credence to personal revelations.

Let me ask you: “would you believe in some alleged revelations which would point to the existence of a different deity?”. Think it over.

You really don’t think this God hypothesis has caught on and lasted for thousands of years for no reason, do you?

Of course there is a reason. It comes from the fact that humans want explanations for “everything”. For most does not matter if the “explanation” is correct as long as it is satisfying and comforting. That gave “birth” to the God-of-the-Gaps. As science evolved, the need for supernatural explanatoins has diminished.

Also there is a huge intertia in every belief system. It gets passed down the generations. It is no wonder that the predominant religions are all geographically centered in certain areas. What you hear as a child is what you will believe as an adult - in most of the cases.

Maybe the signs by themselves don’t make the assumtion of God Necessary.

That is a huge step in the right direction. I commend you for taking it.

But people have had experiences which they believe demand supernatural explanations.

Yep, they believe so. It is merely their opinion.

Maybe not, in some cases. But it would still change the dynamics of the relationship. Most rational people would decide that serving this obvious God is the only reasonable thing to do.
Then, as you suggested above, they might become resentful of God’s rules, or wish He had done things differently…
So, God leaves it an open question. Those who wish to serve Him must Choose to do so… must Choose whether to believe.
Something drastic would change if the decision were forced upon us.

Sure. So what?

So far you did not bring up any actual arguments that the hypothesis of God has any need to be maintained. There is no sign of God, even if he exists. We should continue from this position.

I think the vast majority of people would disagree with you there…

Yes, I know. Those are the healthy ones. Try to look around the hopelessly sick, whose whole existence in umitigated pain and suffering. You believe in hell, I suppose. Do you think that they would rather not be “annihilated”? That they would want to hang on to their eternal pain and suffering? I doubt it.

But that is neither here nor there. You cannot bring up arguments that any existence is preferable to non-existence.

Sounds like Heaven!
But would Heaven really be Heaven without our prior earthly experience? Could we really appreciate it?

That makes no sense at all. Can’t you appreciate a good dinner for it own sake? Can you only appreciate it if you were starving first? I live my life on an “absolute” basis, not a “relative” one. I don’t need to be sick to appreciate health.

Can we get back now to the original questions?

 

[Contarini]

That is a good definition. But theism cannot be narrowed down to this variety, even though most believers on these boards subscribe to it.

You don’t understand. My point is that in terms of philosophy (which is supposedly what this thread is about), this classical theism has almost nothing in common with the “theistic metaphysics” you are discussing (which I still can’t see as being metaphysics at all). You persist in the idea that there is a generic “theistic metaphysics” based on the premise “the universe we know has been created.” This is not so. Classical theism is not a subcategory of such a “theistic metaphysics.”

Maybe, but they are Christians nontheless, and their view about God is not that different from yours.

I think that I’m a better judge of that than you are. To me it seems that their view of God is much more similar to yours than to mine!

I hope no one appears to force you to participate

Not at all. I’m participating so as not to let you get away with shoddy arguments and fool yourself into thinking that you are refuting something called “theistic metaphysics,” when you don’t even seem to know what a metaphysical premise is.

Why would it be meaningless? The term “god” is supposed to describe some beings, who are either “supernatural” (metaphysics) or “transcendant” (epistemology).

This is as confused as most of your propositions. First of all, that is not how classical theism uses the word “God.” We do not recognize that "God’ and “a god” are the same kind of being at all. In the second place, you admit below that a “god” in your definition may not be supernatural. In the third place, you have still not defined “supernatural.” In the fourth place, “transcendent” is not only an epistemological but also an ontological (and thus metaphysical) term. It describes the nature of God’s being and not simply how we know Him. This again illustrates your poor understanding of theism. You seem to think that when we say God is transcendent we simply mean that we can’t fully know Him. The fact that God cannot be exhaustively known follows from His Being and is not simply an epistemological problem.

There can be large variations in the attributes ascribed to these beings, that is true. But they all have some attributes which are beyond nature.

Just how is Zeus or Indra or Thor beyond nature? I don’t see this at all.

But at least the stuffed unicorns exist, don’t they?

That is not the point. The point is that we cannot discuss “belief in unicorns” if “unicorns” are defined to include both living animals and stuffed toys. Similarly we cannot discuss “theism” if “god” is defined so as to include both Absolute Being and a vaguely defined class of superhuman entities.

All the gods invented by humanity have some supernatural powers ascribed to them

You explicitly deny this below.

and all are supposed to have played part in the creation of the world.

Again, it depends on what you mean by “creation.”

Of course not. Metaphysics deals with the question: “what exists primarily?”.

The materialistic answer is that “STEM” (space, time, energy-matter) exist primarily, and the “spirit” exists as the manifestation of highly organized matter.

The theist (especially the classical variety) answer is the exact opposite, it asserts that some non-material entity exists primarily and STEM was “created” by it.

Fair enough. But in that case the various polytheistic mythologies are not theistic. The “gods” of such mythologies are not what exist primarily (for the most part) and one could question whether they are non-material. In Greek mythology the gods are pretty clearly material. One can question whether YHWH as described in the Old Testament was regarded by his worshipers as non-material. The prima facie evidence is against it. The postbiblical text “Shiur Komah” contains a measurement of God’s body. (Some say this is merely metaphorical, but the scholar of Jewish history with whom I studied this text thought otherwise.)

In other words, your definitions remain confused and unworkable.

Well, those “gods” are not supernatural, are they? That is why I said that the term “god” is very loosely defined.

You’ve lost me. Your definition of a “god” is a supernatural, nonmaterial creator (right?). So a nonsupernatural god is a contradiction in terms. If you have a “looser” definition, provide it. But at this point your definition seems to be so vague as to be meaningless and self-contradictory.

That is an excellent question. I defined the term “world” as it is usually understood: as our universe or the Matrix. A closed unit of existence which is separated from its environment (if any). If there are any inhabitants (and why would anyone create a world without them?) it is an environment in which they dwell, exist, act and think. The outside (if exists) is not accessible to them.

But are they accessible to “it”? I’m not sure that the classical theist conception of the “world” can be defined as “closed,” but perhaps it can if you mean “locked on the inside” not the outside. Since in classical theism the world only exists by participating in God’s Being (which is what is “outside”), I question the validity of your definition.

Using the Matrix as an example, I showed that the “supernatural” part does not have to be taken in an absolute fashion, it is enough if the creator is “supernatural” vis-a-vis the created universe - which is obvious.

But this doesn’t make any sense. You’re contradicting yourself again. You said above that “supernatural” means not part of STEM (or did I misunderstand?). So any being made of matter and/or energy, or subject to space and time, would not be supernatural. And would not be a creator or a god by your own definition. How is there room here for being “relatively supernatural”?

Nevertheless, it is still interesting to ponder the relationship between the hypothetical creator and the created beings. That part of the discussion does not differentiate between a “regular” creator and “God”. And why should it? A creator is a creator is a creator. Now you may disagree with that.

Of course I do. A powerful being who engineered the phenomena we see would not have to be supernatural (in the sense of not being subject to the constraints of STEM) and would not, as you note, have to have any of the traditional attributes of “God.” That means that he/she/it is far more fundamentally the same kind of being I am than the kind of being I believe God to be. So calling such a being a “god” is simply a loose and unphilosophical linguistic convention. It’s useless in a discussion of metaphysics. That is my basic argument. Half the time you are agreeing with me (when for instance you point out that a “creator” might not be supernatural), but you don’t see that you are undermining your entire argument by doing so.

Naturally that is your right and prerogative.

Sure. And it’s your right and prerogative to contradict yourself if you want to. I’m just going to keep pointing out that you are doing so!

Edwin

 

[ateista]

Fair enough. But in that case the various polytheistic mythologies are not theistic.

Don’t you realize that this proposition is self-contradicting or totally nonsensical?

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

Well, hard as I tried to keep this thread on track, it still went off on a tangent.

Perhaps because the purpose of the thread is so unclear?

Not just “mine”. Even the believers cannot agree what are the “signs”.

The supernatural can be experienced in many contradictory ways… Perhaps because people are so contradictory! After all, two people can witness the same car accident and come away with two completely different stories and impressions about it. That doesn’t prove the car accident never happened.

And perhaps many contradictory supernatural spirits do indeed exist, which results in contradictory stories from the spiritual realm.

Alleged personal revelations cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking. As far as I know even the CC does not require to give any credence to personal revelations.

That’s because the Church recognizes the safety in numbers… godly people working Together to find what God is revealing to His people. It recognizes that individuals can be deceived or misguided or interpret their experiences incorrectly.

Kind of the same reason we put 12 people on a jury, not just one… Not because the observations of one person can’t be true, but because the observations of many people working together are more trustworthy.

Let me ask you: “would you believe in some alleged revelations which would point to the existence of a different deity?”. Think it over.

Not just automatically.
I’d take a lot of things into consideration, just like I do with other things people tell me…
What is the character of the person? What motivation might they have? Where might they be confused?

If I decided that something supernatural did indeed happen, there’d still be other things to consider, such as which spirit the revelation came from, whether it was correctly understood, etc.

Of course there is a reason. It comes from the fact that humans want explanations for “everything”. For most does not matter if the “explanation” is correct as long as it is satisfying and comforting. That gave “birth” to the God-of-the-Gaps. As science evolved, the need for supernatural explanatoins has diminished.

How so?
Seems to me all the gaps are just different now, not gone.
We still have no idea How our universe works. We only know That it works.
We can only observe the intricate laws working. We have no idea Why they work the way they do or how they got started in the first place.

Also there is a huge intertia in every belief system. It gets passed down the generations. It is no wonder that the predominant religions are all geographically centered in certain areas. What you hear as a child is what you will believe as an adult - in most of the cases.

Is that supposed to falsify God?
Of course various groups of people will experience the supernatural in various ways, just like they experience the natural in various ways. Some will take a belch at the table as an insult, others as a compliment… Doesn’t mean the belch was only imaginary…

I believe God works with people where they’re at. He always has. Revelation has come gradually.
God wants us to seek Him and learn of Him, not simply be forced to capitulate to power.

So far you did not bring up any actual arguments that the hypothesis of God has any need to be maintained. There is no sign of God, even if he exists. We should continue from this position.

Why?
It was never my contention that a God hypothesis Needs to be maintained. That would require Proof and/or force. As long as there is any shadow of doubt, some will choose to ignore the hypothesis.
It’s a good thing science doesn’t normally proceed that way…

That makes no sense at all. Can’t you appreciate a good dinner for it own sake? Can you only appreciate it if you were starving first?

Have you never known the anticipation of a good feast with your stomach growling? Heck, sometimes I’ll intentionally skip a couple meals so I can really enjoy the feast!
No, I would not enjoy the feast nearly as much if I was already pleasantly satisfied. In fact, there’d be no need for feasting at all if we all just soaked in energy through the sun rays, as you suggested before… No need to smell the food. No need to be creative in cooking it. Sounds rather drab… But hey, at least we wouldn’t have the “pain” of dirty dishes to washh afterwards…

I live my life on an “absolute” basis, not a “relative” one. I don’t need to be sick to appreciate health.

How do you know?
If you had never been sick a day in your life and had never experienced it through others, you wouldn’t even know you’re healthy, let alone appreciate it!

Can we get back now to the original questions?

Sigh. I’ve reread your first posts several times now.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out where you wanted to go.
Help?

Kim

 

[Contarini]

Don’t you realize that this proposition is self-contradicting or totally nonsensical?

No. I don’t. And if you actually thought carefully about how you use language you wouldn’t make such a silly claim.

The point I keep making is that the word “god” (and various equivalents such as “theistic” and its compounds) is an equivocal term. It helps in English that we capitalize it when it means Absolute Being and lowercase it when it doesn’t.

Again, let me remind you that you started a thread with the title “theistic metaphysics.” The only thing that can reasonably be called “theistic metaphysics” is the belief that (in your terms) what primarily exists is a spiritual reality upon which all other things depend. (I’m trying to state this so as to avoid some of the specifics of “classical theism.”) The fact that there may be a number of other material or nonmaterial beings with powers that surpass what seem to us to be possible by the laws of nature (that’s my attempt to define your slippery but incessant use of the term “supernatural”) is irrelevant to the question of whether theism as defined above is true. Such other “supernatural” beings might be created by the primary reality, or might be manifestations or emanations of that reality, or names that we give various operations of that reality. Or they might exist in a universe in which there was no such primary spiritual reality. This is “non-theistic polytheism.” And if you knew anything about Jainism or Buddhism you would see that such a thing is quite possible. Arguably this is also the worldview of Norse mythology, and possibly of ancient Indo-European mythology generally. Perhaps of most traditional polytheistic mythologies. Theism as a philosophical concept generally developed (at least twice–in Greece and India–not counting the Hebrew prophets as philosophers, though arguably “Second” Isaiah should be considered one) out of reflection on what reality might lie behind the various “gods” worshiped within a given culture.

Edwin

 

[ateista]

The point I keep making is that the word “god” (and various equivalents such as “theistic” and its compounds) is an equivocal term.

Excellent. It is a very loose term.

It helps in English that we capitalize it when it means Absolute Being and lowercase it when it doesn’t.

It is a useful convention to differentiate between the Christian version of “god” with capitaliaztion, just to avoid the need to explain which particular one we talk about. However, this particular God is just a member of the set of gods. These gods all have some special attributes associated with them.

Yes, some are very “human-like”, others are not. In some mythologies they are animals, in some they are combinations of humans and animals. In some mythologies they are “unique”, in others they are declared plural, with some hierarcy associated with them.

The Christian variety indeed is supposed to have a whole lot of attributes, some of which are absurd enlargements of human attributes (which are viewed in a positive fashion). Christianity is just another mythology among all the rest.

The whole point of this thread is to examine what kind of logical corollaries can be found if we examine the creation-myth - which is central to Christianity as well. If there is a being or several beings who created our world, what kind of behavior can be expected of them and what kind of behavior is expected of us.

In this sense it is completely irrelevant if one posits the Christian God as a creator, or just a scientist, who creates a Matrix inside a giant computer. The scientist is not “god” (as the term is usually used) but he is a “god” vis-a-vis his creation.

You said you don’t care to examine this scenario with its logical consequences. Fine. That is your prerogative. You said, all you want is to declare why this conversation is not “legitimate”. Fine, you did that. Obviously others disagree with you, because they are willing to engage in a conversation, based upon these premises. Will you allow us to continue? Your futher posts in this thread will be ignored, unless you care to contribute in a meaningful manner.

 

[OTavern]

The basic problem is that of the Matrix. Is this existence “real” or do we live in a Matrix? The relevance of this question depends on a few things. If we live in the “natural” world, then the question is irrelevant. The assumption that we live in the Matrix is simply false, and should be discarded. And that is the solution of the atheists.

The theist’s assumption is different. They assume that we do indeed live in the Matrix - an artificial, designed and created world. (Do not confuse this with the movie. I just selected the name for the sake of easy understanding.)

The theist “assumption” you are describing is a little more thorny than that. The traditional Catholic belief is that the natural world is real, good and created by God for us. However the “matrix” might be a good descriptor for the “perception” of the world that each of us have. We all live in our own little matrices, fashioned in our own minds to suit our own little desires and aspirations. Within these little matrices exist also our perceptions or misperceptions of God or the supernatural that we believe exist outside of our matrices, the “idols” of our own making.

God’s “mission,” as far as I understand it is to “break into” our matrices with the Absolute Truth; to bring to us the capacity, which we have lost, to see Reality. It is not simply to educate or teach because “Reality” can’t be taught to a being that has lost its connection to it. It is transformation at the core of being, akin to being led back to one’s “home,” the nature of which has been forgotten, but clearly recognized when revisited.

The process entails replacing the matrix of the “little self” at the core of our being with “Ultimate Reality,” the “little dictator’s view” with Truth. Merely talking the little dictator into believing in some powerful god is NOT the quest. Overthrowing and replacing little dictator and his “matrix” with Truth IS. We must die to our “selves” in order to live in God, in Absolute Reality.

Faith is not simply “belief,” it is total trust. The paradigm is one that C.S. Lewis described very well. We each live in a world “invaded” by illusion; so much so that we cannot any longer distinguish illusion from reality; we are little beings that rule in “darkness.” We cannot trust ourselves until we have been redeemed because we have a limited capacity for Reality and a biased and skewed sense of Truth, especially moral truth.

God’s work is not to “teach” so much as to “reform” or “transform” us and that requires us to trust Him, to “give ourselves over” to him for formation; to give up trust in ourselves and replace it with trust in Him. Merely listening and nodding in assent is not enough – this changes nothing. We must “go to Him” and turn over our whole being to be “transformed.” Only then can we “see” reality because our perspective has widened from a narrow, self-oriented view to one that allows full disclosure.

The final possible scenario (which is what the theists believe) is that the creator communicates with his creation. First of all, that is the ultimate cruelty. To notify your creation, that their existence happened simply as a “whim”, that they are created as hopelessly inferior, whose existence can be terminated at any time, just because the creator “feels like it”, is so horrendous, so evil that I am at a loss finding the proper words. To tell them that they could have been created as equals, but the creator chose to do it otherwise - tells them that they are of no consequence, their whole existence is for the creator’s amusement only. What could be more cruel than creating living, feeling beings with at least **some level of understanding **and then relegate them to the role of helpless slaves?

This, too, is a misunderstanding. Sharing in the “life of God” is not a state of helpless slavery. It is sharing in the freedom and power of God. We make ourselves helpless slaves by “disconnecting” ourselves from God and submitting ourselves to dependency upon psychological and emotional illusion, societal pressure and material causal order.

One of your misconceptions, I suspect, is your view of the nature and importance of “free will.” However, if my analysis above is correct, that as human beings we require a transformation within our very being in order to “become free” of the forces beyond us which “rule” our thinking and acting, then your limited view of freedom is understandable.

You have a view of God that would act like the powerful forces around you to dictate to you and create for you a “perfect” world, one that requires nothing from you but orders everything perfectly towards your present existence – your utopia.

Perhaps your “world-centered view” of perfection, i.e., where the world around you is perfect but you remain untouched, is the crux of the issue. Perhaps in God’s view, the “world” is of little importance, the internal “life” of each being is prime and if that is ordered “perfectly” then all else falls into place.

The “chaos” or “evil” that you often complain about in the “world” is present because of the chaos present within all the beings alive in the world. Creating a “perfect” world would do absolutely nothing to repair the damaged internal matrices of each human being. God’s focus, then, is on doing the internal rebuilding necessary to fix both the broken spirits of human beings AND the resulting damaged, evil-harboring world we live in.

Forgive the analogy, but your solution seems akin to the pharmacological focus of western society, i.e., mask the symptoms to hide the pain, but don’t worry about the ultimate cause of the “dis” ease. God merely needs to rid us of all pain and suffering under the guise of “utopia” and all will be fine. Human beings are perfect, we just need a perfect world to solve all issues.

God’s diagnosis seems a little more profound, like a doctor committed to finding the real root of the issue. He is a committed physician that realizes “pain” and “evil” are indicators of the root of the problem and must be allowed and analyzed in order to track down and eradicate their root causes. He is a doctor that won’t mask symptoms because He will make things completely right at the opportune time. As His patients, we may not like putting up with the temporary discomfort, but in the end it is for our benefit and good health that we do.

 

[ateista]

The theist “assumption” you are describing is a little more thorny than that. The traditional Catholic belief is that the natural world is real, good and created by God for us. However the “matrix” might be a good descriptor for the “perception” of the world that each of us have.

I think a lot of clarification is in order.

When I speak of the Matrix, I speak of a complex world, designed and created by the scientists and programmers. For simplicity’s sake it is considered to exist inside a computer. But this “computer” is not necessarily a bunch of transistors and wires. It is a construct, which is large and complex enough to allow the creation and existence of individual beings.

In this sense, our world is just like a huge Matrix. It is a complex environment in which we dwell, think and act. Sensory perception is simply a transmittion of information about reality. Our world is based on physics (three physical dimensions and one temporal dimension). The Matrix is based on mathematics. The world may have 10 dimensions for all we care and of course a temporal dimension, too. The inhabitants have their own sensory organs, which transmit information about their world.

To say that our world is “real” while their world is “not real” is a misnomer. When we experience our world, it happens via our senses, sight (electromagnetic waves), sound (vibration of air), smell and taste (direct exchange of molecules) and touch (the nerve endings in our skin). The senses of the inhabitants in the Matrix are based upon the decisions of the programmers. Nevertheless they are not “less” real, than our perceptions.

My whole point revolves around this picture.

In our world we may wonder if we have been created by some God. The inhabitants of the Matrix may wonder, too. In their case (whether they know it or not), the hypothesis of being created is true. We don’t know, just like they cannot know - unless the scientist chooses to communicate this fact to them.

This is where the fun starts. Should the scientist notify them? How should the scientist behave in regards to the created beings? What should the inhabitants of this world do and how should they relate to their creator?

I am sorry if this was not clear in the OP. I used the Matrix as a name for this world, and Iwas hoping that it will convey this picture I had in mind. Obviously it was not clear enough.

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

This is where the fun starts. Should the scientist notify them? How should the scientist behave in regards to the created beings? What should the inhabitants
of this world do and how should they relate to their creator?

I don’t see how the answers to these questions will get us anywhere.

Like I said before, so much depends on the scientist’s Prrpose for creating the world. Is the scientist good or evil? Does he want to exert power or have relationship?

You can’t just say, “A scientist (or god) created; now what?” You have to tell us for what purpose he created. Only then can we know what he should do to fulfill hies purpose.

Kim

 

[HelenaMT]

I think a lot of clarification is in order.

When I speak of the Matrix, I speak of a complex world, designed and created by the scientists and programmers. For simplicity’s sake it is considered to exist inside a computer. But this “computer” is not necessarily a bunch of transistors and wires. It is a construct, which is large and complex enough to allow the creation and existence of individual beings.

In this sense, our world is just like a huge Matrix. It is a complex environment in which we dwell, think and act. Sensory perception is simply a transmittion of information about reality. Our world is based on physics (three physical dimensions and one temporal dimension). The Matrix is based on mathematics. The world may have 10 dimensions for all we care and of course a temporal dimension, too. The inhabitants have their own sensory organs, which transmit information about their world.

To say that our world is “real” while their world is “not real” is a misnomer. When we experience our world, it happens via our senses, sight (electromagnetic waves), sound (vibration of air), smell and taste (direct exchange of molecules) and touch (the nerve endings in our skin). The senses of the inhabitants in the Matrix are based upon the decisions of the programmers. Nevertheless they are not “less” real, than our perceptions.

My whole point revolves around this picture.

In our world we may wonder if we have been created by some God. The inhabitants of the Matrix may wonder, too. In their case (whether they know it or not), the hypothesis of being created is true. We don’t know, just like they cannot know - unless the scientist chooses to communicate this fact to them.

This is where the fun starts. Should the scientist notify them? How should the scientist behave in regards to the created beings? What should the inhabitants of this world do and how should they relate to their creator?

I am sorry if this was not clear in the OP. I used the Matrix as a name for this world, and Iwas hoping that it will convey this picture I had in mind. Obviously it was not clear enough.

Using the Matrix analogy pre-supposes that the one doing the creating may not be the ultimate grounding of all reality, which as I understand it, is usually the foundation of the theistic position. So speculating on it this way would be an individual creative exercise, like “what would you do if you were God?” Is that what you are asking for? If I’m too thick to understand your purpose, let me know.

I thought at first you were asking what characteristics would a creator necessarily have to have, and what obligations creator and created would necessarily have to each other. I had some ideas but didn’t want to waste the time to post them if I missed the point.

 

[ateista]

I don’t see how the answers to these questions will get us anywhere.

There is no need to get anywhere. I think these are fun and interesting problems to explore.

Like I said before, so much depends on the scientist’s Prrpose for creating the world. Is the scientist good or evil? Does he want to exert power or have relationship?

In my opinion, he would be indifferent. I cannot see how he could be “good”? What would be the meaning of “good” in such a relationship? And I cannot imagine someone who has that much knowledge (to create a whole world) to be “evil”. I don’t think he looks for power. What would be the point? I don’t think he would seek relationship. Again, what would be the point? But, if you feel otherwise, explore all the possible venues… your thoughts will be appreciated.

You can’t just say, “A scientist (or god) created; now what?” You have to tell us for what purpose he created. Only then can we know what he should do to fulfill hies purpose.

I would say: to gain knowledge. The concept of omniscience (as in knowing “everything”) is totally absurd. One cannot “know” something that does not exist. The word: “to know” is the equivalent of “having information about something”. But the truth is, that even without making assumptions about the purpose of the creator, we can make assessments about the “decency” of his behavior. And we certainly can contemplate the behavior of the created beings.

 

[ateista]

Using the Matrix analogy pre-supposes that the one doing the creating may not be the ultimate grounding of all reality, which as I understand it, is usually the foundation of the theistic position.

One of the reasons I posited this problem is to show that this theistic position is not necessary. One can imagine to have a creator of a whole world without being “omnimax” or without being the “ultimate ground of all reality” - whatever that means

So speculating on it this way would be an individual creative exercise, like “what would you do if you were God?” Is that what you are asking for? If I’m too thick to understand your purpose, let me know.

Yes, indeed. You are not “thick” at all, indeed you see the problem crystal clear! One of the reasons in posting was to allow you (and everyone else) to contemplate how should the creator behave? It is great that we can explore this kind of problem with having the Matrix as a starting point.

I thought at first you were asking what characteristics would a creator necessarily have to have, and what obligations creator and created would necessarily have to each other. I had some ideas but didn’t want to waste the time to post them if I missed the point.

You are correct again. This is another aspect of the problem. Use it in your arguments. I am most interested in your observations.

 

[Kim_in_Montana]

One of the reasons I posited this problem is to show that this theistic position is not necessary. One can imagine to have a creator of a whole world without
being “omnimax” or without being the “ultimate ground of all reality” - whatever that means

Of course. One can imagine that a very powerful alien did it all… who has an even more powerful alien above him, and so on. It’s just not Necessary to imagine such a thing.
Most theists assume that the first cause of this grand universe must be the first cause of everything.
No matter how many aliens one chooses to imagine above us, we still arrive back at an Ultimate First Cause, which is what most people think of when they think of God.

I’m still trying to work on your scenario of a scientist creating a world… I know you said we didn’t need to get anywhere, but I’m having a problem just getting off the ground!
If a scientist designed a grand world like our own, I would have to draw the same conclusions about him that Christians have drawn about God… He must be good; He must be orderly
; He must have laws; etc.

The difference I see between what theists do and what you’re trying to do here is that when theists contemplate God, they are contemplating what the Source of all reality must be like. They’re not just thinking of our own little universe or reality as we know it.
But you’re simply speculating on a specific power that may have created our world.
Fine. Maybe the Ultimate Being sent one of His angels to do it. What difference does that make?

The point is that we believe there can be only One First Cause behind it all. So that One First Cause is ultimately responsible for our universe, no matter how many or what type of helpers He may have had.

Kim

 

[HelenaMT]

One of the reasons I posited this problem is to show that this theistic position is not necessary. One can imagine to have a creator of a whole world without being “omnimax” or without being the “ultimate ground of all reality” - whatever that means

Of course the theistic position is not “necessary”. It just makes more sense to some and less to others. There are plenty of things that aren’t “necessary” but are still preferred or desired (love, happiness, justice…). The only* necessity* we have as individuals is survival. The only thing necessary to humanity’s existence is survival. You can certainly imagine this world to be created by something less than God though.

First of all, there are different answers depending on what kind of creator. If it is just a bunch of high-tech programmers, then the universe has whatever reasons each of those individuals had for contributing, and our reality probably reflects some, but maybe not all, of what they know about their reality, just like movies and video games refelect our knowledge.No particulars are *necessarily true *about their universe. If they don’t communicate with us, it’s probably because we have no value other than what value we derive from video game avatars. Or because their “prime directive” stops them, if they are part of some kind of ethical scientific society.

One creator makes sense to me because of the way our physical universe breaks down along logical cohesive ways that we can figure out and measure. Multiple sentient creators, if we use our own sentient minds as examples, are apt to have conflicts over approach that might cause strange anomalies to break into our reality unless you assume them all to be following the same method of non- intervention, and that they all have the ability to perfectly cooperate. If so, in theory they could operate like the next one, the one creator.

The only necessary traits this creator* has *to have(by your parameters, which were, I think, what are the bare minimum of necessary truths about a theistic worldview in the absence of verifiable scientific evidence ) are

more power than anything else in his creation

more knowledge than any mind coming out of his creation

imagination, the ability to create something completely new that had never existed before

In this scenario, we could have been created for his entertainment, by accident of some laws of nature he was playing around with that led to sentience (which he would have to find incredibly interesting if he had been the only thinking being in existence), or to fulfill an entire plan he had in his mind from the beginning.

In any case, he owes nothing to his creations, since we didn’t have to exist. We owe him nothing other than our existence, which was dependent on his. He could extend eternal existence to us if he wants to, or not if he doesn’t. We could try to find him if we are curious, or deny or dismiss him if we can’t find suitable evidence.

This is only if we take the premise that the creator has never communicated with mankind, and never breaks in in any way, ever, a position I don’t think any theist actually holds. For deists, the characteristics I listed are the only ones I can see as necessary for a creator to have.

I did write a scenario where I "played god’ but it worked out to sound like a really heretical take on Christianity so I just decided not to post it here. ( It basically turned out to propose a reality where God was not omniscient, and not unchanging, but ultimately still caring about us, something that wouldn’t necessarily trouble me personally, but would probably offend people)

Sorry I ended up sort of copping out in this response.

 

[ateista]

Of course. One can imagine that a very powerful alien did it all… who has an even more powerful alien above him, and so on. It’s just not Necessary to imagine such a thing.

Right. That is the scenario I presented.

If a scientist designed a grand world like our own, I would have to draw the same conclusions about him that Christians have drawn about God… He must be good; He must be orderly; He must have laws; etc.

Orderly, yes. Very powerful and knowledgable, for sure. I am not sure what do you mean by “he must have laws”?

But why does he have to be “good”? The creatures he brought forth from nonexistence did not ask for it. Now, if the world he created is pleasant and enjoyable, if the life of the beings is predominantly “good”, then one may say that the creator is “good”. After all we can agree that a pleasant, healthy, joyful, prosperous life is preferable to nonexistence.

If you (or anyone else) could substantiate that any existence, even painful, sick, miserable, hopeless existence is somehow better than nonexistence (in this world, of course!) then you could safely deduce that the creator was “good”.

The point is that we believe there can be only One First Cause behind it all. So that One First Cause is ultimately responsible for our universe, no matter how many or what type of helpers He may have had.

I know. But there is no need for a “first cause”. The world as we know it can be a standalone universe, uncaused. It just “is”. And that is the position of the atheists. For the rest please read my answer to HelenaMT.

 

[ateista]

Your post is pure gold!

Of course the theistic position is not “necessary”. It just makes more sense to some and less to others. There are plenty of things that aren’t “necessary” but are still preferred or desired (love, happiness, justice…). The only* necessity* we have as individuals is survival. The only thing necessary to humanity’s existence is survival. You can certainly imagine this world to be created by something less than God though.

Or it just “is”.

First of all, there are different answers depending on what kind of creator. If it is just a bunch of high-tech programmers, then the universe has whatever reasons each of those individuals had for contributing, and our reality probably reflects some, but maybe not all, of what they know about their reality, just like movies and video games refelect our knowledge.No particulars are *necessarily true *about their universe. If they don’t communicate with us, it’s probably because we have no value other than what value we derive from video game avatars. Or because their “prime directive” stops them, if they are part of some kind of ethical scientific society.

Very well said!

One creator makes sense to me because of the way our physical universe breaks down along logical cohesive ways that we can figure out and measure. Multiple sentient creators, if we use our own sentient minds as examples, are apt to have conflicts over approach that might cause strange anomalies to break into our reality unless you assume them all to be following the same method of non- intervention, and that they all have the ability to perfectly cooperate. If so, in theory they could operate like the next one, the one creator.

Exactly right.

The only necessary traits this creator* has *to have(by your parameters, which were, I think, what are the bare minimum of necessary truths about a theistic worldview in the absence of verifiable scientific evidence ) are

more power than anything else in his creation

more knowledge than any mind coming out of his creation

imagination, the ability to create something completely new that had never existed before

I could not have said it better!

In this scenario, we could have been created for his entertainment, by accident of some laws of nature he was playing around with that led to sentience (which he would have to find incredibly interesting if he had been the only thinking being in existence), or to fulfill an entire plan he had in his mind from the beginning.

I agree 100%.

In any case, he owes nothing to his creations, since we didn’t have to exist. We owe him nothing other than our existence, which was dependent on his. He could extend eternal existence to us if he wants to, or not if he doesn’t. We could try to find him if we are curious, or deny or dismiss him if we can’t find suitable evidence.

Perfectly well said. One remark here. I don’t think he would even ponder to make a “continuation” to this existence (eternal or otherwise). If that is what he wanted, he could have made that “continued existence” in the first place - instead of this one. It is not reasonable to posit any continuation.

This is only if we take the premise that the creator has never communicated with mankind, and never breaks in in any way, ever, a position I don’t think any theist actually holds. For deists, the characteristics I listed are the only ones I can see as necessary for a creator to have.

I am running out of superlatives.

Neverthless, I have to make a few remarks here. Yes, most theists assume that there was or is some communication between God and us. Mostly they agree, however, that the communication is not clear-cut, it is ambiguous, it leaves the door open for other interpretations. They view this aspect in a positive light - it “paves the way” for faith.

However, what is the difference between a total lack of communication and an ambiguous one? If there is no communication at all, we are “allowed” to think that our world just “is”, that we are the masters of our lives.

If there would be an unambiguous communication, then we are “notified” that we are created, our fate is at the discretion of the creator. And that would bring up serious problems. Some people would welcome this, since it would bring some assurance, maybe allow them to cope with life’s misfortunes, believing that there will be a compensation “later”. Others would resent it, and see it as an “insult” to their dignity, robbing them the feeling that they are the masters of their life, relegating them to the role of “children” or “slaves”. (Observe the quotes, please!).

An ambiguous communication achieves the same thing without the certainty. It is just as bad as the clear one, but also adds a level uncertainty. Most people (not all) prefer to have the news as is, and abhor the uncertainty.

Nevertheless, time to draw some conclusions.

If the creator does not communicate his existence in an absolutely clear-cut manner, he “allows” both beliefs. If some people believe in his existence (and can argue for it), while others do not believe his existence (and also can argue for it), then the creator must consider both stances equally acceptable.

The believers do not earn “brownie points” and the non-believers do not get the “scorn” of the creator. He leaves both of them equally alone. There will be no continuation (pleasant or not). There will be no reward nor punishment. This conclusion is based upon the lack of clear communication. As I said before an ambiguous communication is just as bad (if not worse) than the clear one.

My final conclusion is: even if there is a God (in the Christian understanding) all the alleged signs of communication are misunderstandings or wishful thinking. As such he does not differentiate between the faithful and the infidels. He does not owe us anything and we don’t owe him anything. He may as well not exist.

I did write a scenario where I "played god’ but it worked out to sound like a really heretical take on Christianity so I just decided not to post it here. ( It basically turned out to propose a reality where God was not omniscient, and not unchanging, but ultimately still caring about us, something that wouldn’t necessarily trouble me personally, but would probably offend people)

Sorry I ended up sort of copping out in this response.

I hope you did not discard it. Please post it, or send it to me in a PM.