Gods responsibility

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Precisely! If the gun had free will, it would be held responsible -- but not the gun manufacturer.

... because the gun manufacturer wasn't aware of the intent of the person who acquired the gun.

Criminal facilitation

In some jurisdictions, criminal "facilitation" laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability. These include state statutes making it a crime to "provide" a person with "means or opportunity" to commit a crime, "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime."

Accessory (legal term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[InChrist]

It's a false dilemma, though, because, according to the law, a dog doesn't have free will. An owner is supposed to control the animal at all times. But God's not "in control" of any of us -- that's what makes free will, free will.

Exactly, and that free will is an important aspect of being made in the image of God, from my perspective. I believe it is one of the most precious gifts God has given to each person, but as with anything it can be and has been abused and some people prefer to find someone to blame rather than admit personal responsibility.

 

[idav]

It's a false dilemma, though, because, according to the law, a dog doesn't have free will. An owner is supposed to control the animal at all times. But God's not "in control" of any of us -- that's what makes free will, free will.

That is kinda the question. Why wouldn't God control his wild dog when unleashed? An owner is culpable and they do their best to train and make sure it doesn't happen but sometimes does. More so a designer is culpable especially when knowledge is involved.

So it is a question if free will should even be given. The law would tell us to put our robot on a leash. Free will can be given without allowing horrendous acts.

 

[idav]

Im sure you saw the movie IRobot.

Thats a pretty good comparison of what you are talking about here. The robots were created to act independently which can be likened to 'free will', and they were governed by the 3 rules. If an act contradicted any of the 3 rules, the robots would not do it.

Only when an outsider (VIKI - the artificial intelligence computer) switched off those 3 rules, did the robots commit evil acts.

And that is the same with mankind. We were governed by rules which would tell us if something was bad and our conscience would tell us not to do it. But satan came along and told us to ignore the rule of our conscience and do the act.... so its only when we deliberately ignore the rules of our conscience that we commit evil acts.

And that most certainly is not Gods fault. Its ours for ignoring our conscience.

This is an interesting difference, I can agree with this. Possibly if the designer takes the precautions that get overridden I can see not blaming the designer. That would be one tough case.

 

[sojourner]

That is kinda the question. Why wouldn't God control his wild dog when unleashed? An owner is culpable and they do their best to train and make sure it doesn't happen but sometimes does. More so a designer is culpable especially when knowledge is involved.

So it is a question if free will should even be given. The law would tell us to put our robot on a leash. Free will can be given without allowing horrendous acts.

Because we're not dogs. We're human beings, and more than that, we are the imago dei. God doesn't control us, train us, or take any responsibility for us in the way of behavior.

With regard to your last sentence: No one held the scientists responsible for designing the atomic bomb.

 

[sojourner]

That is kinda the question. Why wouldn't God control his wild dog when unleashed? An owner is culpable and they do their best to train and make sure it doesn't happen but sometimes does. More so a designer is culpable especially when knowledge is involved.

So it is a question if free will should even be given. The law would tell us to put our robot on a leash. Free will can be given without allowing horrendous acts.

I'm not so sure that any of your post is the case.

 

[Amechania]

That is kinda the question. Why wouldn't God control his wild dog when unleashed? An owner is culpable and they do their best to train and make sure it doesn't happen but sometimes does. More so a designer is culpable especially when knowledge is involved.

So it is a question if free will should even be given. The law would tell us to put our robot on a leash. Free will can be given without allowing horrendous acts.

No it can't. for free will to operate there can be no interference from any outside party. It would not then be "free."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because we're not dogs. We're human beings, and more than that, we are the imago dei. God doesn't control us, train us, or take any responsibility for us in the way of behavior.

With regard to your last sentence: No one held the scientists responsible for designing the atomic bomb.

I can tell that you don't work in government or transportation engineering. When a collision happens on a public road, it often happens that the road authority gets sued... and they can be liable if they're found at fault.

If the road wasn't designed to relevant design standards or if the snow wasn't plowed within the appointed time after a storm, then the road authority is held at least partly responsible. This is even if your own misbehaviour was the immediate cause of your crash, and even if you knew about the deficiency ahead of time.

Short version: counter-examples to your examples happen all the freakin' time.

 

[idav]

Because we're not dogs. We're human beings, and more than that, we are the imago dei. God doesn't control us, train us, or take any responsibility for us in the way of behavior.

With regard to your last sentence: No one held the scientists responsible for designing the atomic bomb.

Well I suppose in a way god did put a leash. Once we ate the fruit he said "better kill them" in not so many words. Gods can be good or evil and thats dangerous. We arent trained but held liable but we arent completely god and go by nature and need stopping in those horrible cases of extreme suffering. Nature is blamed, instinct.

They would still want to blame someone. As direct as possible but they wont blame the pilot but the persons or entity making the decision. And god let that happen too.

 

[idav]

No it can't. for free will to operate there can be no interference from any outside party. It would not then be "free."

Freedom can be allowed without allowing chaos.

 

[Sir Doom]

Books are not real life. If he was making sentient beings suffer then he as evil as the god from the bible.

If God is an artist, then it is identical.

I have plenty of scenarios and they all look bad for god.

I assure you that is a limit of your own imagination, not one of reality.

Tough not impossible.

So, in fact, you can imagine positive scenarios.

No Artists don't get to play with real life unless its some twilight zone episode or something.

Again, if God is an artist, we are its medium. It is identical despite how horrible it is for Boromir and us.

One simply has to look at the state of the world to get a good picture. Its close to a hell for lack of a better term. Whatever sort of entity inflicts that sort of mess on creations is malevolent or not powerful enough to fix it.

I'm sure there are some more options.

 

[sojourner]

I can tell that you don't work in government or transportation engineering. When a collision happens on a public road, it often happens that the road authority gets sued... and they can be liable if they're found at fault.

If the road wasn't designed to relevant design standards or if the snow wasn't plowed within the appointed time after a storm, then the road authority is held at least partly responsible. This is even if your own misbehaviour was the immediate cause of your crash, and even if you knew about the deficiency ahead of time.

Short version: counter-examples to your examples happen all the freakin' time.

That's not the case in this country.

 

[sojourner]

Well I suppose in a way god did put a leash. Once we ate the fruit he said "better kill them" in not so many words. Gods can be good or evil and thats dangerous. We arent trained but held liable but we arent completely god and go by nature and need stopping in those horrible cases of extreme suffering. Nature is blamed, instinct.

They would still want to blame someone. As direct as possible but they wont blame the pilot but the persons or entity making the decision. And god let that happen too.

The problem is that you're trying to pound a square God into a round legal hole. It just doesn't work that way. But there's a play that speaks to this same dilemma, called The Trial of God by Elie Wiesel. It can be found in book form, and is apropos to the issue you raise here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the case in this country.

And God is an American? Bowie was right, it seems.

America-centrism aside, it's most certainly the case in your country. Here's one example:

An Olympia man today settled a dangerous-highway-design lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Transportation for $2 million. John Lancaster, 24, was critically injured when his motorcycle hit a car turning left onto the controversial intersection at Lynch Road and SR 101 near Shelton.

[...]

“Crossing the intersection is like playing a high-stakes game of chicken—some drivers make it, some don’t. The state knew that people’s lives were at risk, but chose to do nothing,” said Shawn Briggs, a Tacoma attorney representing Lancaster. “Drivers on Lynch Road have trouble judging when it is safe to go because of the high speed on SR 101 and the configuration of that intersection.”

http://www.briggsandbriggs.com/LancasterDOTSettlement.pdf

I can provide more examples all day if you like.

 

[idav]

If God is an artist, then it is identical.



I assure you that is a limit of your own imagination, not one of reality.



So, in fact, you can imagine positive scenarios.



Again, if God is an artist, we are its medium. It is identical despite how horrible it is for Boromir and us.



I'm sure there are some more options.

Its possible to think of positive scenarios but absolutely difficult with the state of the world. Of course we can only think of so many scenarios but we can get the gist.

An artist isnt typically god to sentient beings. Written characters dont feel and if some human author thought it was real they might write completely different due to conscience.

 

[Sir Doom]

Its possible to think of positive scenarios but absolutely difficult with the state of the world. Of course we can only think of so many scenarios but we can get the gist.

And yet you still haven't detailed how you would do it. Of course that would require that you know what 'it' is that God is supposedly doing.

An artist isnt typically god to sentient beings. Written characters dont feel and if some human author thought it was real they might write completely different due to conscience.

They might. Then again... they might not. Naturally, this makes no difference since its possible that God regards us the exact same way we regard a fictional character. Considering the level of control such a being has over everything... I fail to understand the difference you see.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Say some scientist creates a perfect robot with freewill and decides to let it loose on the world. Then the robot decides to murder most of humanity because it became evil. Is that the robots fault or the scientist who let it loose on the world?

There doesn't seem to be justification for god with this, if he intentionally allowed evil then it follows it is gods fault. Even despite some gift of free will, we would put our creations on a leash or face the consequences.

The difference is - the scientist does not give the robot in-depth personality, it may be built from scratch, but that is not the same. God, in this reference, is often shown to create not even from scratch, but from nothing. Every bit and piece was created by God.

If you were to make the robot software, and the scientist created everything that makes up by number per number binary, then you would have relation. This scientist should have seen it coming in the binary if he thought ahead (like I'd imagine a creator God would). If he looked ahead at every precise number in the binary, and could add up in his head the outcome, he would have known how weak willed the robot was against (insert certain degree of temptation). Thus, creating a temptation to that agree is asking for the robot to murder.

Unfortunately, I can't imagine how pure freewill would look in a world, it just makes absolutely no sense. It'd be like randomly hitting 1's and 0's without looking while constructing the binary, and that's utterly irresponsible.


Speaking in reference to my personal beliefs; I am a determinist, but aside from that, God's only responsibility is existing, and it matches our own responsibility. (Don't confuse life with existing )

 

[idav]

They might. Then again... they might not. Naturally, this makes no difference since its possible that God regards us the exact same way we regard a fictional character. Considering the level of control such a being has over everything... I fail to understand the difference you see.

I dont feel conscience for fictional characters.

The difference is - the scientist does not give the robot in-depth personality, it may be built from scratch, but that is not the same. God, in this reference, is often shown to create not even from scratch, but from nothing. Every bit and piece was created by God.

If you were to make the robot software, and the scientist created everything that makes up by number per number binary, then you would have relation. This scientist should have seen it coming in the binary if he thought ahead (like I'd imagine a creator God would). If he looked ahead at every precise number in the binary, and could add up in his head the outcome, he would have known how weak willed the robot was against (insert certain degree of temptation). Thus, creating a temptation to that agree is asking for the robot to murder.

Unfortunately, I can't imagine how pure freewill would look in a world, it just makes absolutely no sense. It'd be like randomly hitting 1's and 0's without looking while constructing the binary, and that's utterly irresponsible.


Speaking in reference to my personal beliefs; I am a determinist, but aside from that, God's only responsibility is existing, and it matches our own responsibility. (Don't confuse life with existing )

In the bible humans come from the dust of the earth.

In quantum computing they dont always know the position of a bit, could be one and zero, it is actually both at the same time while processing, giving mumtiple simultaneous process. To get the position they want outside of the quantum state they do error correction. Suffice to say things can come out that are not predicted.

Whereas a classical bit of information either takes on the value '0' or '1', quantum particles can be placed in superposition, meaning they can be either '0', '1' or '0' and '1' simultaneously. These*quantum bitsenable powerful new ways to process information. They are, however, also extremely vulnerable to errors, such as accidental flips from '0' to '1' or changes in the phase of a superposition. Even the tiniest of such errors continuously accumulate to inevitably erase the quantum information. It is therefore crucial to timely detect and correct errors.


Phys.Org Mobile: Physicists correct quantum errors

 

[Sir Doom]

I dont feel conscience for fictional characters.

Then they (fictional characters) should regard you as a monster or a lunatic, yes?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

In the bible humans come from the dust of the earth.

Yeah, and the earth came from God.

In quantum computing they dont always know the position of a bit, could be one and zero, it is actually both at the same time while processing, giving mumtiple simultaneous process. To get the position they want outside of the quantum state they do error correction. Suffice to say things can come out that are not predicted.

Only in the same way Schrodinger's Cat is, only on a relative level. Whether or not it's actually chaotic has not been proven, and I don't see how it could be.