What if I were God?

[mike7795]

Howso?

Impossible. You can’t choose before being created since you don’t exist before being created.

And the million dollar question is, if I know that I didn’t exist at one time, doesn’t that prove my existence? How can I know I was not, unless I was aware of it?

Mike

 

[BlaineTog]

Is it clear now?

As I said, you misinterpreted me.

Now carry it one step further: “you cannot do anything for someone, who does not exist”. You cannot ask them, if they wanted to exist, you cannot do anything with them or cannot do anything for them. You cannot even “create” them. It is nonsensical to say that one creates “John Q. Doe” - because “John Q. Doe” does not exist before he is created.

So if something hasn’t always existed, it cannot ever exist?

Um… no? One day, the telephone didn’t exist, and the next, it did. One day, there were no wheels, and the next day, there were. One day, no one even had the idea of galvanized rubber, and the next, they had the material itself.

Other than that, this is just a non sequitur. If you think the logic works at all, go ahead and try to explain it better, because it looks like you made logical jumps as big as Rhode Island.

That is old-fashioned rationalization, and I don’t accept it. If one must take time and energy to acquire something, because it is not freely available then this time and effort will be “subtracted” and cannot be used to achieve something else.

An ice-cold lemonade is really good. An ice-cold lemonade drunk after a 10-mile run is utterly sublime. QED.

You misquote me again. I said that it is possible to freely accept or reject God.

No it’s not. The system has been set up such that you can’t. You’ve reduced humans to Rube Goldberg machines which are complicated and may look free but aren’t.

You mentioned this in the other thread. It contradicts to the concept that there can only be one God. There is also a logical error in it. God did not freely choose to be God, so a choice is not necessary.

God =! gods. Hence, no contradiction. Technically speaking, saying “gods” is a little inaccurate, but it gets the meaning across better than saying “God will exalt us all into becoming fully human” since the word “human” has strong implications of failure and imperfection which shouldn’t be there and misses the power and greatness which should.

How do you know that?

As I recall, there’s some scripture about it, plus it’s part of tradition, and logic confirms it.

And isn’t that exactly what heaven is supposed to be? Constant bliss?

It is, but it’s much much more than that. Simplification to mere bliss would be kinda like going to the release party of a great big blockbuster movie with all your favorite artists in it, and only remembering the punch. Yeah, the punch was really good, but it’s only part of the thing.

Come on. God is now curtailed by statistics? It may be very unlikely, but not impossible to have every created being freely choose God.

It’s not a matter of God’s power, but a result of human frailty and free will. I know you don’t think anything of freedom, but it’s a crucial component in the Christian conception of God. If you take that out, you have to take out Love as well.

Well, that does not look correct. God plays absolutely no role in my life, and I am a very happy person.

God plays all sorts of roles in your life whether you know it or not. He created you, he nurtures you, he provides for you, he gives you happiness and pleasure, he gives you knowledge and wisdom, and he gives you love, and as much as you are willing to take. Now obviously, you’ll disagree if you’re an atheist, but you can’t assume atheism when you’re trying to understand a theistic schemata of the world.

Sure can. There could be differences, of course, subtle ones, big ones.

And if there were any differences, they would be, by definition, different. My point is her sinlessness is more than one of a number of her attributes like her hair color or personality but that those attributes all contributed to a situation in which she was sinless.

But you cannot say that it is possible for one person to freely choose God, and that free choice will automatically disable everyone else from doing the same thing. That simply makes no sense. It would create a “collective” free will, where Mary had “first dibs” and this choice deprives us from having a free choice.

I didn’t say only one person can freely choose God. I said there’s only one person who lived a totally sinless life. You can sin and repent. Maybe there was someone else who only sinned once, I don’t know.

 

[ateista]

I didn’t say only one person can freely choose God.

And that was precisely my point. It is statistically improbable, but not impossible to compose the human race from such people, who freely choose God.

I said there’s only one person who lived a totally sinless life. You can sin and repent. Maybe there was someone else who only sinned once, I don’t know.

Totally irrelevant. I did not mention “sinless”, but of course the same reasoning would apply. There is no such thing as “first dibs” on being sinless, either. God could have chosen to create totally sinless people, too - who stay sinless out of their own free will.

 

[ateista]

The fact that there is a desire points to an ultimate end to satisfy that desire.

It most certainly does not. A desire (any desire) is not a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[Nullasalus]

It most certainly does not. A desire (any desire) is not a self-fulfilling prophesy.

And that’s not what was said. ‘Points in’. It’s an indication, not an undeniable fact.

God could have chosen to create totally sinless people, too - who stay sinless out of their own free will.

So what you’re saying is, an omnibenevolent God would doom any imperfect creation to utter non-being, rather than allow the introduction of imperfect beings who could be improved?

Funny definition of benevolence you’re working with there.

 

[ateista]

So what you’re saying is, an omnibenevolent God would doom any imperfect creation to utter non-being, rather than allow the introduction of imperfect beings who could be improved?

Funny definition of benevolence you’re working with there.

I don’t see anything “funny” about that. A perfect being creating imperfect results… now that is strange…

 

[Sarpedon]

Even if you do not recognize it, or don’t want to recognize it, God plays a much bigger role in your life than you will ever know.

Well said.

Ateista, the fact that you have made nearly 900 posts on this forum seems to me to indicate that you take this whole question quite seriously. Since you have nothing really to gain through participating, I find it suprising that you spend so much time doing it. I know you have described this all as a game, but I’m suprised to take this one “game” so seriously… Is it really that fun?

 

[Nullasalus]

I don’t see anything “funny” about that. A perfect being creating imperfect results… now that is strange…

Then you have to look a little harder.

You’re making the claim that a ‘perfect’ being would only allow the creation of perfect individuals, or perfect situations (and let’s keep in mind that situations have a large role in creating people). Indeed, that an omnibenevolent being -must- do this.

Let’s put aside the very question of what a perfect being entails. We know that even an imperfect being or situation can improve. Through time, through will, etc. You’re basically asking us “Why would an omnipotent, loving God not create exclusively The Eternally Perfect, and regard anything less than that as unworthy of attention, much less creation?”

If you can’t find the silliness there - or at the very least, a reason for you to step back and take a long look at what you’re really asserting - you’re in an unfortunate situation. The flaw is obvious.

 

[goofyjim]

If I were God I would be surprising alot of conservatives with how many liberals get into heaven.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, the fact that you have made nearly 900 posts on this forum seems to me to indicate that you take this whole question quite seriously. Since you have nothing really to gain through participating, I find it suprising that you spend so much time doing it.

Who knows, maybe I can gain a few things? Insight into the question, how the religious mind works? Quite a fascinating subject. And let’s not forget, I do not deny that there is a miniscule chance that I (and the other atheists) overlooked something, and that there is a rational explanation for your beliefs.

I know you have described this all as a game, but I’m suprised to take this one “game” so seriously… Is it really that fun?

Sure it is fun. It is actually not a “game”, it is a very stimulating mental exercise. After all I am not conversing with “dummies” here. There are interesting points brought up.

 

[ateista]

Then you have to look a little harder.

You’re making the claim that a ‘perfect’ being would only allow the creation of perfect individuals, or perfect situations (and let’s keep in mind that situations have a large role in creating people). Indeed, that an omnibenevolent being -must- do this.

Let’s put aside the very question of what a perfect being entails. We know that even an imperfect being or situation can improve. Through time, through will, etc. You’re basically asking us “Why would an omnipotent, loving God not create exclusively The Eternally Perfect, and regard anything less than that as unworthy of attention, much less creation?”

If you can’t find the silliness there - or at the very least, a reason for you to step back and take a long look at what you’re really asserting - you’re in an unfortunate situation. The flaw is obvious.

Is it? Why don’t you point it out? Because I sure cannot see any flaw.

Let’s ponder an analogy. I was a computer programmer. When I designed and implemented programs, I tried my very best to make them “perfect”. No errors were intentionally introduced into them. Unfortunately I am far from being a “perfect” programmer, and errors do get into the products. But those errors were there due to my imperfection, not due to my intentions.

The first question is: “why did God create anything?”. If God is self-sufficient, then he does not need anything else. Whatever he “needed”, we have to assume (if God is logical) that the wolrd is precisely what he “needed” or “wanted”. He did not create a “perfect” world, because he ***did not want ***a perfect world. The world came out precisely as God wanted it: with all the horrors, misery, pain, suffering, rape, torture - as well as the good, love, decency etc.

And that puts God’s alleged “benevolence” into a very dubious light. A benevolent being simply does not intentionally create rapes, genocides, wars, plagues, etc… as long as the word “benevolent” has any meaning whatsoever.

 

[Sarpedon]

The first question is: “why did God create anything?”. If God is self-sufficient, then he does not need anything else. Whatever he “needed”, we have to assume (if God is logical) that the wolrd is precisely what he “needed” or “wanted”. He did not create a “perfect” world, because he ***did not want ***a perfect world.

Allow me to jump in here…

You have to remember that the world was originally created perfect or nearly perfect in the Garden of Eden (which doesn’t necessate creationism, BTW). Of course, we still had free will.

And that puts God’s alleged “benevolence” into a very dubious light. A benevolent being simply does not intentionally create rapes, genocides, wars, plagues, etc… as long as the word “benevolent” has any meaning whatsoever.

No catholic claims that God creates these things. Rather, people choose to create them using their free will. We have free will because God wants us to be free to choose him, which necessitates the possibility for rejection.

 

[seeking_light]

in my experience it is religion ( a creation of man ) that is to blame for misconceptions . what you base your arguments on is mans inability to explane why the world is . i came from a background where women were the scourge of the earth and were lower than devils without reprive. now my parents truly beleave this and when i have questioned it have been told “because thats the way it is” . dose this meen that all women wil go to hell because man said so NO a structure that MAN has dictaed will not be obayed by god . in the same way it is mans defanition of perfect whats being argued here.

a baby is born “perfect” it has never sined and is innocent. (i have jet to hear of a feotus comiting sin) in order to be born this way we must have been created this way . therefore we ARE ALL created “perfect” it is the fact that we are brought up in a world largly created by man ( god did not create the tellephone ectra they are mans inventions) that leeds us to be “(name removed by moderator)erfect”.

just to clarify this point . in ALL religions ( which are diferent faces of god) there is ONE unifying concept , this is LOVE UNCONDITIONALY . thus logic stands to say there is only ONE sin and that is the denial of unconditional love .
(all other “sins” as religion state are parts of this one sin. that is the one sin was briken down into bite size chuncks easyer to comprihend)

case study - the are a small tribes of bushmen in the remote deserts of africa . they rely entirly on nature there enviroment has no (name removed by moderator)ut from man this is gods “perfect world” . anything they need can be found and there is enough for everybody . even water! ( there is a certain tuba that grows like a weed out there from which they source their water) they have no record of violence or hatred and when they find an elephant or other kill to big for them to eat one of them will run for days to find the nearest tribe to share the meet, in the meentime the rest of the tribe gard the meet and none of it is touched untill everybody is present.

These people have unconditional love they have never sined there for they remain the “perfect being” that they were created as . they donot have a religouce structure nor do they have hevan they donot have a god and they do not pray and yet they are “perfect”. they dont understand how but they know that they will be provided for as long as they only take there share .
this trust and their love is the purest form of god as seen by man and that is all they need for there is no temptaion in their world.

“perfect” beings do exist and we are created “perfect” it is mans world of temptations and structures that leeds us to (name removed by moderator)erfections .
and before you say it is imposible for a “perfect being” to be tempted consider this. from the moment we are born we are told that in order to become “perfect” we must do x y z . this leeds the child to confusion ( how many times have you been convicted of somthing only to be talked round by the majority) for no mater how strongly he knows that he is “perfect” he will be worn down eventualy .then he is told that if doing x y z makes you “perfect” then people teling you to do a b c are imperfect and are stopping you becoming “perfect”. on hearing this the already confused child panics and fears these people . BANG there goes his perfection in one split second of panic and confusion he has failed to love unconditionaly and so has sinned becoming imperfect . if the child were to continue loving unconditionaly and repent then his sin would be forgiven and he would again become “perfect” . however knowing he has sinned the child looks to his “wiser” elders (who themselves are imperfect) to guidence and so is caught in a viciouce circle .

hence we are created “perfect” but our fellow man leed us to be imperfect.

“what was once perfect can be purifyed back to its origanal state with the right know how.” Dr S. Billington

 

[Sarpedon]

Who knows, maybe I can gain a few things? Insight into the question, how the religious mind works? Quite a fascinating subject. And let’s not forget, I do not deny that there is a miniscule chance that I (and the other atheists) overlooked something, and that there is a rational explanation for your beliefs.

As the saying goes, “It’s better to be an inquiring atheist than an apathetic or unfaithful believer”.

I think there is much truth in this saying.

At least you are seeking truth, unlike those who have the truth but just don’t care.

 

[J_W]

Fortunately you are not God. Maybe God created to glorify himself and that includes his justice and wrath. For most, that means God has no intention of sharing his love with them. He has more unpleasant plans for the unrepentant.

 

[Nullasalus]

The first question is: “why did God create anything?”. If God is self-sufficient, then he does not need anything else. Whatever he “needed”, we have to assume (if God is logical) that the wolrd is precisely what he “needed” or “wanted”. He did not create a “perfect” world, because he ***did not want ***a perfect world. The world came out precisely as God wanted it: with all the horrors, misery, pain, suffering, rape, torture - as well as the good, love, decency etc.

And that puts God’s alleged “benevolence” into a very dubious light. A benevolent being simply does not intentionally create rapes, genocides, wars, plagues, etc… as long as the word “benevolent” has any meaning whatsoever.

Actually, the word ‘benevolent’ has plenty of meaning even in tha context, according to the Church’s view.

First, you’re confusing ‘allow’ with ‘intend’. Go to Plantinga: A benevolent being could (and reasonably, would) have plenty of reason to allow evil into the world on two grounds: One, the recognition that a world of utter ‘it will not get any better’ perfection may not be logically possible. You can always make a perfect world better by adding one more person. So to get anything done, you’re going to deal with a cutoff point (or with a world that can improve infinitely over time, in which case you can start from just about any degree of perfection.)

Two, certain goods aren’t available in a world without wars, rapes, plagues, genocides, disease, and otherwise. I’m not merely talking about ‘lessons learned from overcoming those things’, mind you - I’m talking about the existence of certain beings at all. You, for example. You as an individual (And myself, and everyone else) could not logically exist in a perfect world. Not only are you flawed, but your very existence in the world is dependent on a history of some flaws, and some evil. Ergo, remove the evil, remove the flaws, and you’re wiped out of existence in the process.

(You can reply ‘God could have made a perfect me, or at least a vastly better me!’, but it would have been ‘you’ only in the most mild and unimportant ways. Not your consciousness. Not your experience. Not your material. Not your history. Not your relationship. Not your universe. God could have made a better you in the same way God could have made you be Frank Sinatra: by removing everything it means to ‘be you’.)

The good that not only can, but must come from certain flaws and evils is abundant and easy to demonstrate. What’s more, if God does exist, then those evils would be utterly and ultimately temporary - every effect they have can be gotten past, every harm healed, and every resulting good nurtured.

In other words, for God to utterly disallow evil in a universe would be the sign of a God who was not omnibenevolent. He condemns imperfect, evil beings to nonexistence, even though any evil could be cured. He also condemns perfectly good beings who were victims to nonexistence as well. A man injured horribly due to war? Not worthy of existence - even though God could make his injury utterly temporary, and make the man himself better in every way through time and even nature. The soldier who injured that man unjustly, even gleefully? Not worthy of existence, even though he could repent, see the error of his ways, become a better person, take part in God’s plan, etc.

In other words, there’s no ‘dubious light’ of God’s benevolence in the Catholic (or really, most religious) understanding. It makes utter sense, to the point we should be grateful of what we see in this world - Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds” and all that. Now, you can argue whether the religious understandings are ultimately accurate - if the dead will rise, and so on. Admittedly, even that tact has lost a whole lot of its power due to the advances of science; we now see inklings of what a world can be like in accordance with God’s plan. Many sick are healed, many more have real promises to be healed with advances, we see the results of the spread of many of Christ’s teachings to the world (even if they’re ebbing due to the results of secular influence, etc.)

The logical problem of evil fails. The evidential problem of evil takes a big hit. Reasons to doubt remain - in fact, reasons to doubt would (in my view) be present even in a world vastly better than this, because perfection is infinite in possibility. But reasons to be grateful for the world we live in, even as victims of evil, also make a strong showing. So the observation of a benevolent God allowing evil doesn’t do nearly what you seem to think it does. In fact, it largely works against the conclusion you’ve derived from it.

 

[ateista]

You have to remember that the world was originally created perfect or nearly perfect in the Garden of Eden (which doesn’t necessate creationism, BTW). Of course, we still had free will.

I don’t know about “perfect”. One of the attributes of perfection is that it cannot be changed. But of course it did not “change” on its own right. God cursed it… and that was the cause of the change.

No catholic claims that God creates these things.

Of course not! But if they were honest to themselves, they **should **claim it explicitly, not insinuate it implicitly and deny it when the truth is pointed out.

Rather, people choose to create them using their free will. We have free will because God wants us to be free to choose him, which necessitates the possibility for rejection.

Nonsense. The earthquakes, black plauges, diseases are not “created” by “evil” scientists. According to your belief, they are the direct result of God cursing his creation.

And no, it is not “just” nor it is “merciful” to issue a “generic” curse, which will affect the innocents - to wit the animals. If the disobedience was such a horrible act, then God should have punished the offenders, not the innocent ones. Is that so difficult to understand? Where is your sense of “justice” that supposedly God himself inscribed into your “heart”?

 

[ateista]

As the saying goes, “It’s better to be an inquiring atheist than an apathetic or unfaithful believer”.

I think there is much truth in this saying.

At least you are seeking truth, unlike those who have the truth but just don’t care.

That was very nice of you. Thank you very much!

 

[ateista]

This is a very good post! Alas, I will have to take exceptions to some (not all!) of your points.

Actually, the word ‘benevolent’ has plenty of meaning even in tha context, according to the Church’s view.

First, you’re confusing ‘allow’ with ‘intend’.

No, I don’t think so. At the the level of God, these cannot be differentiated. At our level, most definitely. We are not able to assess all the ramifications of our actions (or lack of them). We are not able to bring forth exactly as we wish to, because we are not powerful enough. We can err, and many times we do.

None of this is applicable to God. For God there is no difference between “allowing” something and “intending” something. There is no difference between “guilt by commission” and “guilt by omission”. These categories only apply to non-omniscient and non-omnipotent beings.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can bring forth anything and everything exactly as he intends to. There is no “excuse” for failure. It is hard to be “perfect”. The phrase “the buck stops here” is most certainly applicable to God - and no one else.

Go to Plantinga: A benevolent being could (and reasonably, would) have plenty of reason to allow evil into the world on two grounds: One, the recognition that a world of utter ‘it will not get any better’ perfection may not be logically possible. You can always make a perfect world better by adding one more person. So to get anything done, you’re going to deal with a cutoff point (or with a world that can improve infinitely over time, in which case you can start from just about any degree of perfection.)

That is a very interesting point. I have to think about the distinction between “significantly” better and “superficially” better. Adding another good person to an already perfect world would be “superficially” better, but not “significantly” better. In other words, it would not change the “perfection” of the world in any way. So Plantinga is incorrect.

Two, certain goods aren’t available in a world without wars, rapes, plagues, genocides, disease, and otherwise. I’m not merely talking about ‘lessons learned from overcoming those things’, mind you - I’m talking about the existence of certain beings at all. You, for example. You as an individual (And myself, and everyone else) could not logically exist in a perfect world. Not only are you flawed, but your very existence in the world is dependent on a history of some flaws, and some evil. Ergo, remove the evil, remove the flaws, and you’re wiped out of existence in the process.

(You can reply ‘God could have made a perfect me, or at least a vastly better me!’, but it would have been ‘you’ only in the most mild and unimportant ways. Not your consciousness. Not your experience. Not your material. Not your history. Not your relationship. Not your universe. God could have made a better you in the same way God could have made you be Frank Sinatra: by removing everything it means to ‘be you’.)

Yes, this is a valid point. (You see, I do not object out of spite, I only object when I see a good, logical reaon to do so. ) But, of course, I must point out something. Indeed I would not be “me” if I were to be created differently.

The question is: “who would care”? Or more precisely: “who would know”? I would not, since I would be unaware of the “different me”. And by the same token, no one else would. We all would be different beings, without any knowledge that we “could have been different”.

Right now, if another sperm cell of my father would have impregnated my mother’s ovum, I would be different. Sure, and who cares? What significance does such a “would have been” carry?

Yes, the “goods” would be different in a world with different beings. But no one would be aware of it. So to postulate it is of no relevance.

… will continue. I would be over the 6000 character limit.

 

[ateista]

Continued from above.

The good that not only can, but must come from certain flaws and evils is abundant and easy to demonstrate.

Please demonstrate a few.

In other words, for God to utterly disallow evil in a universe would be the sign of a God who was not omnibenevolent. He condemns imperfect, evil beings to nonexistence, even though any evil could be cured.

Yes. My question is: “who would know or who would care”? Your point seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong): it is better to be sick and cured than it is better not to be sick at all. I simply cannot see how this could be substantiated.

Who would miss the rapists, the torturers, the murderers - even if they could be “cured”? Not the victims, I am sure. And what about those who are not “cured”?

Yes, I assert that the ones who are “created” with disposition to be “evil” would be much better off, not to have been created at all, than to have been created, allowed to do their evil acts, and then condemned to eternal suffering. Go and ask anyone in hell and see what their response is… nonexistence is definitely preferable to eternal damnation.

He also condemns perfectly good beings who were victims to nonexistence as well. A man injured horribly due to war? Not worthy of existence - even though God could make his injury utterly temporary, and make the man himself better in every way through time and even nature. The soldier who injured that man unjustly, even gleefully? Not worthy of existence, even though he could repent, see the error of his ways, become a better person, take part in God’s plan, etc.

Unfortunately this is all a “could have been” piled up on more “could have been”. The soldier’s possible (or actual) repentance does not “undo” the previous deed.

That is one of the points of contention. You assert that later “good” can “wipe out” previous evil. Not acceptable, I am afraid. If a father would unjustly beat his kid in a drunken stupor, giving a lollipop later with not “undo” or invalidate the previous “evil”.

In other words, there’s no ‘dubious light’ of God’s benevolence in the Catholic (or really, most religious) understanding. It makes utter sense, to the point we should be grateful of what we see in this world - Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds” and all that.

Sorry, this is not convincing at all. The idea that this is the “best possible world” is easily invalidated.

Now, you can argue whether the religious understandings are ultimately accurate - if the dead will rise, and so on. Admittedly, even that tact has lost a whole lot of its power due to the advances of science; we now see inklings of what a world can be like in accordance with God’s plan. Many sick are healed, many more have real promises to be healed with advances, we see the results of the spread of many of Christ’s teachings to the world (even if they’re ebbing due to the results of secular influence, etc.)

Now here you have my unqualifed disagreement - unlike the previous part, where we did agree on certain points. The advances you speak of are due to completely and totally secular causes. The secularity you condemn is the reason for these advances, and not some “plan of God”.

The logical problem of evil fails.

You could not demonstrate it.