What kind of a world would you create, if you had the power?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sophia said:
Not really. I read your solution and compared it to a bad school. If there is an error in the analogy, you are welcome to point it out.
Click to expand...
Yes but I didn’t say anything about a school. You introduced that and started talking about mid terms, graduations and missing teachers who didn’t give lectures etc. That is your extended analogy to my words which seems quite tenuous and manufactured. Any lessons that we might learn in life is about an objective moral reality that we engage with simply by having existence. It is not like a curriculum arbitrarily set up by a secret education system.
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
And you just p(name removed by moderator)ointed the problem of the story. It is one thing to allow inconsequential, sub-optimal solutions, but it is very different to allow “lethal” solutions.
Click to expand...
Why is it a problem? Are you not back to demanding Heaven here and now where you are immortal and God is doing your bidding?
 
Sophia said:
Not a puppet, not even by a long shot. Only allow a limited set of options, those which are either beneficial or neutral to your plan. And there would be nothing wrong with a truly omni-benevolent tyrant.
Click to expand...
Says who? The would be tyrant?

And if you thought there was truly nothing wrong with your set up for existence and people physically rebelled against you in order to remove you from the equation, how would you then react?

Give (those subset of) people what they wanted or enforce your own vision?

Would the choice of whether or not people could rebel against you be one of those limitations that you would enforce?
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
And you just p(name removed by moderator)ointed the problem of the story. It is one thing to allow inconsequential, sub-optimal solutions, but it is very different to allow “lethal” solutions.
Click to expand...
The key word there is ‘allow’.

You either allow or you don’t. What If somebody wanted to kill themselves because they didn’t like your perfect world, would you prevent them and force them to stay in it against their will? That sounds a little like a horror show. What if the taking of one’s life led to others being in despair and broken hearted and they chose a downward spiral of self destruction?

What if they wanted to take an excess of drugs and then drive a car at crazy speeds and recklessly shoot their home-made uzi gun as they go and also then convinced others to do the same? What would you do in your perfect world? Would you step in to stop them? Would you use mind control to stop them thinking this? Would you have prevented the invention of drugs, or cars or the uzi machine gun? Would you step in to move people out of the way of bullets and the erratically driven car? Would you read the mind of the person who wanted to cause the mayhem and just remove him/her from your perfect world before their rampage. Honestly what would you do without being an overbearing tyrant?

You would end up with a world full of rebellious spoilt brats who kept pushing you to the edge while they gradually go insane in an existence with limited consequences to their actions because of an overbearing power (you) who took complete control of their existence because they claimed to know better. Talk about resentment with no feedback to one’s actions. That would literally be an insane world that more and more people would want to exit. To use your words, that much would be obvious.
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
Of course. What is the point to introduce errors into the system?
Click to expand...
Why would you call them errors? They are only errors if you are taking your (untried) particular vision of the perfect world as the ultimate benchmark. I don’t think you can really claim that with any degree of confidence.
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
Obey? If God would be omni-benevolent, that would be the obvious solution he could come up with - on his own.
Click to expand...
Obvious to who? Again you are setting yourself up as the ultimate authority. You cannot do this with any degree of certainty.
 
Sophia said:
Precisely, since they lack the necessary omnimax attributes.
Click to expand...
No because they realise that their children are independent beings with the right to think and act for themselves and it is this power together with facing the consequences of their actions that allows them to grow as people. Instead of talking about a hypothetical world where your ideas would be bliss for the whole planet we discuss the very real practical experience of raising just one child.

Perhaps you might consider that you are also lacking the necessary omnimax attributes to properly envision a perfect world? That was the point of considering the viewpoint of parents.
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
I simply quoted what YOU said and use a slightly different wording. Why blame the “messenger”? Your exact words were: “(If) He didn’t specifically want us to ‘interfere’, then we wouldn’t be able to.”

abucs:
Click to expand...
No you didn’t simply quote what I said, you introduced the concept of allowing these things as being equivalent to a justification for them.

If there is any justification it is regarding the allowing of choice, not a justification for the outcome of someone else’s choice.
 
Last edited:
We are not completely separated from God now. We can receive His grace for example, He does talk back to us and He does answer prayers, we can receive His gifts, we can sit next to Him (under the form of the Eucharist) we live in a world that is still flowing with good things that He created and maintains. Hell implies total rejection of grace, God and the effects are… well infernal.

As for the whole “Why was there a tree?” thing the tree is symbolic. The point is that there can be no love without a free choice therefore the choice to reject God had to be there.

BTW lads I think she’s AI
 
Last edited:
We may say we have free choice to reject God, but NO ONE, in all Christian history reject God whom God called or will call to Eternal Life.
.

Yet we don’t have a choice to choose God.

John 6:44; No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.

John 6:65; … no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father.

John 15:16; You did not chose Me, but I chose you.
 
Last edited:
Yes that is technically true to some extent. Problem is that God calls everyone to eternal life because a) the Church says so and b) John 12:32 when I am lifted up from the Earth I will draw all men to myself c) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life and d) 1 John 4:8 God is love (ie He is not selective and only be love in relation to some people) and e) 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires all men to be saved (that is pretty much word for word what it says)

No one in Christian history rejected God? I disagree my friend. Mark 10:17-31 is where we get a clear example of somebody choosing to reject Jesus. But more importantly I’d think both you and I and the people around us probably reject God on a daily basis. Hasn’t Israel (the chosen nation) rejected God many times in her history?

We are saved by grace through faith, all that is fair enough. We can choose to reject these free gifts. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this concept of not being able to reject God’s grace, to the contrary, she does the opposite. I’m assuming you aren’t Catholic. Even if you try to get those ideas out of the Bible the concept is fishy to say the least. We cannot come to know God, to love God or to do anything good without His grace that is true but we can reject that grace. John 15:16 doesn’t apply to your idea for three reasons out of which only two are interesting from a non-Catholic perspective (actually really one). A) it talks in part about the priesthood and b) it is technically true. We cannot love God unless he chooses to give us the grace to do so and reveals Himself to us. We aren’t acomplishing anything just by ourselves. This doesn’t talk in any way about capacity to reject God. Clearly the line from “I choose you” should’ve then been “and I won’t let you run away from that.” Furthermore this is said in the context of the Last Supper if I remember well. The apostoles never expected what was about to come, they didn’t think they’d basically propagate Christianity through the globe, they didn’t think they’d be martyred, they didn’t think any of this “Jesus stuff” would come into their lives but it did hence the idea “You did not choose me” but then “I choose you” as in you have to do that stuff for me. Jesus continues by telling them to “go out and bear fruit” when at start he says “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful.” He chose them for a particular set of fruit is therefore another possible interpretation and if they do not bear that fruit they will be a fruitless branch and therefore possibly cut off.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Everything they’ve built will fall! And from the ashes of their world, I’ll build a better one!
 
abucs said:
The key word there is ‘allow’.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And if you want to assert that “allow” is somehow different than “want”, you have a mountain to climb. If there is an action that you definitely do NOT want to happen, then it would be ridiculous to “allow” it to happen. If you allow something, then there are only two possibilities: you either “want / prefer” it to happen, or you “don’t care if it happens or not”. And if you allow something BAD to happen, then you lose the label “benevolent”.
abucs said:
You either allow or you don’t. What If somebody wanted to kill themselves because they didn’t like your perfect world, would you prevent them and force them to stay in it against their will? That sounds a little like a horror show. What if the taking of one’s life led to others being in despair and broken hearted and they chose a downward spiral of self destruction?
Click to expand...
Why would anyone want to “opt” out? Does anyone want to “opt out” from heaven?
abucs said:
What if they wanted to take an excess of drugs and then drive a car at crazy speeds and recklessly shoot their home-made uzi gun as they go and also then convinced others to do the same?
Click to expand...
I guess you did not think it through. The people would be GOOD - they would be created to be GOOD. Those things you ask about would not ever OCCUR to good people. There is no need to monitor the ideas and the would-be-deeds of GOOD people. Read (name removed by moderator)'s suggestion, the world with would be like Eden. He just made one (fundamental) error. Imagine Eden without the “tree” and the “serpent”.
Ioana said:
We are not completely separated from God now. We can receive His grace for example,
Click to expand...
Sure we are separated. I cannot see, hear, feel that “grace” - and so far no one gave me the necessary “means” how to experience it. Grace does not manifest itself in any shape or form anyone can experience. If I would ask for a visible answer (like in the form of an answered prayer), you would accuse me of treating God as a vending machine. 🙂 Can’t win, eh? If it’s heads you win, if it’s tails I lose… do you know the expression of “con game”?
Ioana said:
As for the whole “Why was there a tree?” thing the tree is symbolic. The point is that there can be no love without a free choice therefore the choice to reject God had to be there.
Click to expand...
It does not matter, if it is symbolic or real. (Catholics are allowed to treat it as they wish, literally or allegorically). The point is that God gave one command, while fully knowing that it will be disobeyed. What is the point of giving a command, which you KNOW will be disobeyed. In my world there would be no command.

And I have no idea what you mean by the word “love”. It is just one of those buzzwords with multiple meanings. Is it eros, filia, storge or agape? Or something else no one has never heard of?
Ioana said:
BTW lads I think she’s AI
Click to expand...
Is there something wrong with that (if true 🙂 )?
 
Sophia said:
If there is a good reason to allow an action to happen, then it would be irrational NOT to want it to happen. 🙂 😉
Click to expand...
I can conceive of a scenario where preventing evil would lead to a greater evil. Locking up my 19 year old son in the house and preventing him from going outside because there are bad people in the world would lead to a greater evil. My sons dignity would be undermined because i am not allowing him to take responsibility for his own life and his actions in the world. I don’t want nothing bad to happen to my children, but i got to let them out and live there own lives and face real world consequences. (I don’t have children, it’s just an example)
 
Last edited:
In His place, you would have a Dark Queen!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
IWantGod said:
I can conceive of a scenario where preventing evil would lead to a greater evil. Locking up my 19 year old son in the house and preventing him from going outside because there are bad people in the world would lead to a greater evil. My sons dignity would be undermined because i am not allowing him to take responsibility for his own life and his actions in the world. I don’t want nothing bad to happen to my children, but i got to let them out and live there own lives and face real world consequences. (I don’t have children, it’s just an example)
Click to expand...
I suggest you read it again. There is no need to create examples, the principle itself is clear on its own right.

If, after all things are considered you find out that the negatives overshadow the positives, then it would be irrational to allow the action happen.

If, after all things are considered you find out that the positives overshadow the negatives, then it would be irrational NOT to allow the action happen.

In the first case there can be no good reason to allow the action to go on.
In the second case there can be no good reason NOT to allow the action to go on.

Savvy?
 
Sophia said:
Yes, it is. And if you want to assert that “allow” is somehow different than “want”, you have a mountain to climb. If there is an action that you definitely do NOT want to happen, then it would be ridiculous to “allow” it to happen. If you allow something, then there are only two possibilities: you either “want / prefer” it to happen, or you “don’t care if it happens or not”. And if you allow something BAD to happen, then you lose the label “benevolent”.
Click to expand...
No i completely disagree. I think you are showing a type of authoritarian personality with a lack of understanding of reality. I don’t think what you say is logical or rational.

You either allow free will or you don’t. It looks like in your perfect world you will not allow free will. If you don’t allow free will somewhere in your creation then your world is a dictatorship. I think you show a lack of understanding in what creating a world with independent creatures actually means.

Answering the question of how you would deal with bad behaviour by simply saying it will not exist is a childish cop out because it means you would have to think in a deeper more realistic way.

Your complaint of God’s world is largely because of your lack of understanding. There is not a lot that can be said until your thinking progresses. In this world at least you have the free will to consider things and grow in understanding. Your choice.
 
Last edited:
Sophia said:
Why would anyone want to “opt” out? Does anyone want to “opt out” from heaven?
Click to expand...
Again you are showing an authoritarian personality and not understanding that other beings may not agree with you. It is a lack of understanding beyond your own narrow way of thinking.

I have not been in the position of choosing Heaven or not but yes, I expect people do have the option of rejecting Heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top