Gods responsibility

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the scientist omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent? Yes or no?

- which of these qualities would be relevant to responsibility?

- of those that are relevant, which would increase the level of responsibility and which would decrease it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

- which of these qualities would be relevant to responsibility?

Omnibenevolence would be relevant due to the fact that it would not be possible for a omnibenevolent scientist to commit any wrongdoing...so the robot's action would be its own fault...by default.

- of those that are relevant, which would increase the level of responsibility and which would decrease it?

It wouldn't matter whether the scientist/God refrained from using his almighty hand, or actually used his almighty hand...whatever action that God takes, or doesn't take, is ultimately the right decision, if the attribute of omnibenevolence is true of God, and on the Christian view, it is.

 

[Thief]

- which of these qualities would be relevant to responsibility?

- of those that are relevant, which would increase the level of responsibility and which would decrease it?

Increase is by measure to what you allow into heaven.
If the chaos of this world is allowed into the peace of heaven....
The Doorkeep is responsible.

He and the riff-raff will be thrown out.

Decrease is by apathy.
If God doesn't care this world....then maybe not the next one either?
In which case, your would be opponent (and possibly your most hated adversary) will be there waiting for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Omnibenevolence would be relevant due to the fact that it would not be possible for a omnibenevolent scientist to commit any wrongdoing...so the robot's action would be its own fault...by default.


It wouldn't matter whether the scientist/God refrained from using his almighty hand, or actually used his almighty hand...whatever action that God takes, or doesn't take, is ultimately the right decision, if the attribute of omnibenevolence is true of God, and on the Christian view, it is.

You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming "omnibenevolence" here. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the question of whether a person/god/whatever is benevolent is dictated by their actions, not the other way around.

What I was getting at with my questions was the idea that a person's limitations reduce their responsibility, so a being with no limitations would have even greater responsibility for the outcome of its actions.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming "omnibenevolence" here.

Ahhh you've just boxed yourself in the corner..because the fact that you are judging the scientist/god by his actions would be for you to ASSUME a certain standard of morality...and if this scientist doesn't live up to this standard, then he is acting immorally (based on your personal standards)...so you have to presuppose a certain standard of goodness before you can even judge the scientists actions.

So we are both assuming, aren't we? The question is, is there objective morality? Hmmm?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the question of whether a person/god/whatever is benevolent is dictated by their actions, not the other way around.

But you can't logically judge someones actions of right or wrong without presupposing your own moral standard.

What I was getting at with my questions was the idea that a person's limitations reduce their responsibility, so a being with no limitations would have even greater responsibility for the outcome of its actions.

My point was, if God is omnibenevolent, then God cannot be responsible...or in this case, the scientist.

 

[sojourner]

By all means disagree but what you described are just examples of the experiential world and sentiments that we all share, atheist and theist alike.



But there is no evidence of an intervening power in the natural world. And in any case if God intervenes then he must be more than a metaphor or a principle but an actionable entity in fact, which you’ve previously said he is not.



Then please be good enough to explain in what way God is ‘more.’



It’s not a matter for arbitration; it is self-evident. If God is responsible for the world, as you agree that he is, then what happens in the world is his responsibility. It’s a tautological truth, and true because it cannot logically be false.



Then please explain?

You're trying way too hard to pin God down to a definition. It can't be done -- at least, not in any all-encompassing sense.

We've already addressed the point of the distinction between "responsible" and "culpable," and determined that what the OP was referring to was culpability. Which depends upon a judgment.

 

[sojourner]

What else?

You tell me. Any theological construction can only address a certain aspect of God. My approach is from a theology of nature. There are many other viable constructions that all form pieces of a puzzle.

 

[cottage]

You're trying way too hard to pin God down to a definition. It can't be done -- at least, not in any all-encompassing sense.

We've already addressed the point of the distinction between "responsible" and "culpable," and determined that what the OP was referring to was culpability. Which depends upon a judgment.

Your two sentences above can be answered together.

God is the creator or sustainer of existence or he is not; and if he is, and so that there is no room for ambivalence or ambiguity here, I’m saying that without God there is no existence. From that it follows necessarily that whatever happens can only happen because of God, that is to say: No God, then no happenings.

‘Just as God not only gave being to things when they first began, but is also as in the conserving cause of being, the cause of their being as long as they last…so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as its cause.’ St Thomas Aquinas

If Aquinas is right then there is no distinction to be made between the terms ‘responsible’ and culpable’, and if we add to that the logical argument I’ve given at the top then we have an acceptable definition of God, at least if the term is to have any cogent meaning, and it is proved therefore that God is culpable because he is responsible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahhh you've just boxed yourself in the corner..because the fact that you are judging the scientist/god by his actions would be for you to ASSUME a certain standard of morality...and if this scientist doesn't live up to this standard, then he is acting immorally (based on your personal standards)...so you have to presuppose a certain standard of goodness before you can even judge the scientists actions.

So we are both assuming, aren't we? The question is, is there objective morality? Hmmm?

No, that's not the question. In fact, if morality was entirely subjective and personal, I would be completely justified in calling anything good or evil that I want. You're the one who's hung his hat on that idea.

But you can't logically judge someones actions of right or wrong without presupposing your own moral standard.

... which you do by calling God benevolent.

The standard, whether it's God's ideas of right and wrong or something rational, is external to the action.

My point was, if God is omnibenevolent, then God cannot be responsible...or in this case, the scientist.

That makes no sense. Do you think that we're only responsible for our bad actions?

Benevolence - even "omnibenevolence" - has no effect on responsibility. God is responsible for the consequences regardless of whether those consequences are good or bad. If we're going to assume that God is good, then this wouldn't mean that God isn't responsible the murderous rampage of the robot he created; this would mean that those murders are actually good.

 

[Thief]

The standard, whether it's God's ideas of right and wrong or something rational, is external to the action.
God is responsible for the consequences regardless of whether those consequences are good or bad. If we're going to assume that God is good, then this wouldn't mean that God isn't responsible the murderous rampage of the robot he created; this would mean that those murders are actually good.

That kind of logic is so convoluted, you could twist it anyway you want....
and call it good.

Or are you attempting to demonstrate that point?

If God is responsible....for the murderous rampage.....and you call it good....
Prison is then evil.

We should not have law or consequence.

(but of course we do....and we do it for the better and the good.
Would you then say the robot God created is better than the Creator?)

 

[samosasauce]

Well a robot can't have chemical imbalances as easily as humans, so there's that. However, free will doesn't imply they have a fully functioning mind either. That is another fact you'd have to know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That kind of logic is so convoluted, you could twist it anyway you want....
and call it good.

Or are you attempting to demonstrate that point?

Pretty much.

If God existed, he would be responsible for the consequences of his actions. If we assume - for whatever reason - that God is good, then the implication is that the consequences of God's actions are good as well.

Personally, I think it's more rational to re-evaluate our assumptions: maybe God didn't actually do the thing we think he did. Maybe God isn't actually good.

If God is responsible....for the murderous rampage.....and you call it good....
Prison is then evil.

We should not have law or consequence.

It's hard to say. If murderous robots are good, then maybe throwing good people in prison is good, too.

(but of course we do....and we do it for the better and the good.
Would you then say the robot God created is better than the Creator?)

Since our gods are reflections of ourselves, a God tends to be no better or worse than his believers.

 

[sojourner]

God is the creator or sustainer of existence or he is not; and if he is, and so that there is no room for ambivalence or ambiguity here, I’m saying that without God there is no existence. From that it follows necessarily that whatever happens can only happen because of God, that is to say: No God, then no happenings.

We are also given the privilege of "co-creating," meaning that, while God gave us our existence, we, also take responsibility for what we, in turn, create. IOW, we're ultimately culpable for our own actions, as judged by cosmological outcomes.

if we add to that the logical argument I’ve given at the top then we have an acceptable definition of God, at least if the term is to have any cogent meaning, and it is proved therefore that God is culpable because he is responsible.

First of all, that's not a definition. Second, it is, of necessity, only a partial description of what God is, or does. God-as-Creator has to be held up in conjunction with all the other descriptions of God: God-as-redeemer, God-as-lover, God-as-mother, God-as-sustainer, God-as-life, God-as-love, etc.

But, since we're talking about culpability, let's look at it this way: we derive the idea that God is Creator, ultimately, from Genesis. We derive, also, the idea that we are co-creators with God from Genesis, when we are lionized with the appellation, imago dei. In the Adam and Eve saga, Cain kills Abel. Nowhere in that story is God "ultimately culpable" for that crime. It is Cain, and Cain alone who bears responsibility. You see, at some point, even if we live and move and have our being in God, we are created, in some way, separate from God, so that God has an object to look upon, to call "very good," and to love. It is at this separateness that we are held responsible for our actions.

 

[mystic64]

The OP presents a question that is probably, historically speaking, the most discussed/debated question that Humankind has ever pondered. "The why would God or the gods do this, of it all?" Because, if you believe in a God or Goddess the Creator who is all powerful, then "everything" that happens is ultimately their fault. They are to blame for everything! Period.

Now what is interesting is the addition of the concept of a "robot" that has the freedom to do whatever it decides to. What makes this interesting is that all living things are "biological robots". And all "living systems" are set up with only one "prime directive", and that is "survival of the fittest". And God the Creator has set up the whole mess that way. Nature is not nice, it is all one living thing living off of other living things. And even though that it is all God's fault, it is a very functional automated system in a limited resource environment that is the planet that we live on. If you are not fit, then you die to make room for somebody else that is. The Natural laws are very mercenary.

Which then brings us back to Humankind as a species and the propencity for compassion to pop up in a non compassionate natural world that is based on "survival of the fittest." Compassion is not natural relative to the laws of nature. It is an "artificial reality that is created by the Human mind." And if it was not for this unnatural "compassion" fluke that seems to constantly manifest itself relative to the Human mind, there would be no questioning whether God was good or evil or to blame for anything. Because, everything would just be the way that it is suppose to be.

Compassion? A biological robot that is not naturally programmed for "compassion" that lives in a living system that is not naturally programmed for "compassion" periodically manifesting "compassion" in its programming is to me a wonderment ! What is funny is that "compassion" will ultimately be what saves Humankind as a species even though it is not natural to the programming of Nature. And from there the question could become, "Is God to blame for this artificial "compassion" human mind reality or is it a uniquely human mind oddity that has appeared as a flaw in natural programming and it has absolutely nothing to do with God?" Because God can only be faulted if one considers the artifical concept of "compassion", a foundation for judgement.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, that's not the question.

Well, what is the question, then? The question that was asked is;

Is that the robots fault or the scientist who let it loose on the world?

My point was, it depends on the attributes of the scientist...and then I asked is the scientists omni-benevolent, which is a question that one would need answered if one is answering a question regarding morality.

In fact, if morality was entirely subjective and personal, I would be completely justified in calling anything good or evil that I want. You're the one who's hung his hat on that idea.

Well, then on that same note, if morality is subjective and even if neither God nor the scientist are omnibenevolent, they are both "justified" in committing any action that they want, just like the robot is.

... which you do by calling God benevolent.

Not at all. I believe that God is omnibenevolent based on what I believe are good arguments for the case.

The standard, whether it's God's ideas of right and wrong or something rational, is external to the action.

If God omnibenevolent, then his actions would reflect his character.

That makes no sense. Do you think that we're only responsible for our bad actions?

Yes, because I believe that we have this thing called "free will", and when you exercise your free will to commit any given act, you are responsible, whether good or bad.

Benevolence - even "omnibenevolence" - has no effect on responsibility. God is responsible for the consequences regardless of whether those consequences are good or bad. If we're going to assume that God is good, then this wouldn't mean that God isn't responsible the murderous rampage of the robot he created; this would mean that those murders are actually good.

Makes no sense. God cannot guarantee that people will always make the right decisions with the free will that they are given. He is just by instilling every human being with the acknowledgement of right and wrong, and he is equally just by making people answer for the bad choices that they make.

 

[Thief]

Since our gods are reflections of ourselves, a God tends to be no better or worse than his believers.

I think it's supposed to be the other way about.

We should endeavor to be a reflection of our Creator.

We won't be trusted with greater things if we don't care the lesser things.

For now, the ability to govern our surroundings goes as far as the length of our arms and the ability of our fingers.

But it is greatly rumored .....a few....have shown such spirit.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, it's clearly stated that humanity is the imago dei, not that God is in our image. I don't see how a statement that "God is in our image" can make any theological sense.

 

[cottage]

We are also given the privilege of "co-creating," meaning that, while God gave us our existence, we, also take responsibility for what we, in turn, create. IOW, we're ultimately culpable for our own actions, as judged by cosmological outcomes.

If a child dies of meningitis, and God is the first cause of all subsequent causes and their effects then God is responsible for that child’s death. It would be utterly absurd to say either the child is responsible for its own death or that the heartbroken parents were the cause.

First of all, that's not a definition. Second, it is, of necessity, only a partial description of what God is, or does. God-as-Creator has to be held up in conjunction with all the other descriptions of God: God-as-redeemer, God-as-lover, God-as-mother, God-as-sustainer, God-as-life, God-as-love, etc.

It is the core definition! Permit me to give it to you again:

God is the creator or sustainer of existence or he is not; and if he is, and so that there is no room for ambivalence or ambiguity here, I’m saying that without God there is no existence. And from which it follows necessarily that whatever happens can only happen because of God, that is to say: No God, then no happenings.

Either the foregoing is true or it is not. And if it is true then the both Aquinas’ statement and my logical argument must also be true, necessarily. And I therefore contend that it is true whether or not God actually exists, whereas the examples that you gave as definitions are merely attributes that are not logically necessary to the concept. ‘Humans as co-creators’, ‘God-as-redeemer’, ‘God-as-lover’, ‘God-as-mother’, and ‘God-as-love’ pose no contradiction when denied as necessary to the concept of God the creator and sustainer. God the creator, if he exists, cannot not be what that means, but there is no necessity in his being loving or redeeming, listening to prayers or having the son Jesus etc, etc.

But, since we're talking about culpability, let's look at it this way: we derive the idea that God is Creator, ultimately, from Genesis. We derive, also, the idea that we are co-creators with God from Genesis, when we are lionized with the appellation, imago dei. In the Adam and Eve saga, Cain kills Abel. Nowhere in that story is God "ultimately culpable" for that crime. It is Cain, and Cain alone who bears responsibility. You see, at some point, even if we live and move and have our being in God, we are created, in some way, separate from God, so that God has an object to look upon, to call "very good," and to love. It is at this separateness that we are held responsible for our actions.

Well we don’t all derive our idea of a creator God from Genesis; it is a universal concept, a hypothesis that does not require any particular religious affiliation and is understood even by atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

The OP is a truly fascinating question.

The more I think about it, the more impossible it seems to give a straight answer.

Does the scientist know the consequences of free will? Does anybody?

To my mind free will is a positive, it is what makes life meaningful - but that is an opinion, not a knowledge claim. So I can only conclude the solution that has the most benefit - the most practical effect.

I would tell the robots that the responsibility is theirs, because an intelligent being of free will who BELIEVES that is more likely to take mitigating action. Taking responsibility for ones actions must at the very least improve the survivability of an intelligent species with free will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, it's clearly stated that humanity is the imago dei, not that God is in our image. I don't see how a statement that "God is in our image" can make any theological sense.

A person's choice of religion is an expression of their values. Just as someone will use their political affiliation or even the choice of car they drive as an expression of who they are, people use religion the same way.

It's like the Prius: Toyota makes a hybrid Camry as well, but the Prius always outsells it. Why? It's not because the Prius is more practical, more fuel efficient, more reliable, or made by a better company; the Camry's the equal or better of the Prius in all those categories. It's because the Prius has a distinctive body style. If you drive a Prius, not only do you get the benefits of a hybrid car, but you also get much more recognition from others for the fact that you drive a hybrid.

I think that religion is often like that: it's just as much about being seen as holding particular beliefs as it is about actually holding them. In that respect, it makes perfect sense that people would choose a God that reflects what they want to express of themselves to the world.