Gods responsibility

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine points of law aren't the point. I merely used that as an example. It really has little to do with the OP issue of pounding a square God into a round legal hole.

Gods are very malleable - I'm sure it will fit. People form their gods to fit their needs all the time.

And I see nothing about law in the OP. The OP touched on responsibility, and the law deals with responsibility, but that doesn't make it a legal issue.

 

[Willamena]

The parent aspect is similar but not the same as purposely creating an entity that you unleash on the world...

No, that's pretty much parenthood.

 

[idav]

No, that's pretty much parenthood.

Maybe if we created humans, we have very little control if any over what happens with children. Besides we do whatever is in our power to influence children to be responsible. Something that is a true creation we would have more control over if it was necessary. We do however often blame parents for what children do because the parent is more knowledgeable and experienced and have a reasonable amount of control. As we lose that control we cannot be held liable and the losing control isnt something avoidable as it would be for our own programming and architecture of a being.

 

[idav]

First of all, I'm talking US law, not Canadian law, as I informed Penguin. Second, can you tell me exactly how "that's not at all the same?" You seem to want to hold God responsible for evil, simply because God created an environment where evil is possible. I don't see how that differs from holding the US government responsible for crime simply because they maintain a social order where crime is possible.

It doesnt matter the country.

It can be reasonably discerned when someone is culpable or not, including god. Your example wasn't a reasonable example of culpability. I gave better ones like japan blaming us for bombings rather than blaming the bomb pilot.

If it is reasonably controlable then doing nothing is a crime. If everything is being done to prevent it then liabilty is waivered in a logical and reasonable manner. God has all control and knowledge so that is the big issue. A creator, programmer, architect and implementor has control and thats an issue.

 

[sojourner]

Gods are very malleable - I'm sure it will fit. People form their gods to fit their needs all the time.

And I see nothing about law in the OP. The OP touched on responsibility, and the law deals with responsibility, but that doesn't make it a legal issue.

No. Not and retain any fidelity to conventional and widely-accepted theology.

 

[sojourner]

It doesnt matter the country.

It can be reasonably discerned when someone is culpable or not, including god. Your example wasn't a reasonable example of culpability. I gave better ones like japan blaming us for bombings rather than blaming the bomb pilot.

If it is reasonably controlable then doing nothing is a crime. If everything is being done to prevent it then liabilty is waivered in a logical and reasonable manner. God has all control and knowledge so that is the big issue. A creator, programmer, architect and implementor has control and thats an issue.

No. Yours is a poor example, because it assumes a more-or-less equal footing with God. Japan -- US = comparable entities: sovereign countries. That's simply not the case with God. God is not on the same footing with humanity in any biblically-based theological model.

 

[sojourner]

It doesnt matter the country.

It can be reasonably discerned when someone is culpable or not, including god. Your example wasn't a reasonable example of culpability. I gave better ones like japan blaming us for bombings rather than blaming the bomb pilot.

If it is reasonably controlable then doing nothing is a crime. If everything is being done to prevent it then liabilty is waivered in a logical and reasonable manner. God has all control and knowledge so that is the big issue. A creator, programmer, architect and implementor has control and thats an issue.

But humanity is not "reasonably-controllable."

 

[idav]

No. Yours is a poor example, because it assumes a more-or-less equal footing with God. Japan -- US = comparable entities: sovereign countries. That's simply not the case with God. God is not on the same footing with humanity in any biblically-based theological model.

Yet god is said to be sovereign so you make it a good example.

 

[idav]

But humanity is not "reasonably-controllable."

Not reasonably controllable by the creator and maker of all. I might agree with you only cause I am pantheist. I am happy to deny gods sovereignty which relinquishes him of culpability.

http://www.theopedia.com/Sovereignty_of_God

 

[Thief]

It almost sounds like you're saying that God wouldn't create humanity in his own image.

Oh but He did.
Mind and heart as spirit.(pending death)

The accurate 'reflection' isn't there.

Stand to a mirror and talk to yourself.....how long will that last?
A few minutes?

Now consider 'spirit'.

Exist in a universe as it forms.....for a few billion years....
and you would be content with your own echo?

If you could 'split' your spirit in pieces (be in more than one place at one time)
You would still be talking to yourself.
The answer known even as the next question gels.

So with nothing other than substance to work with.....
"Let us make Man in our own image."

(not reflection)

So we are like God....sort of.
"...and what is Man that God is mindful of him?"

Something less.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They are responsible also for letting a monster into the world without reasonable precautions, it would be neglegence. Just like dog owners have to take care of their pit bull, even if biting someone is the dogs fault.

Your argument only works if the robot was programmed to be a monster. Even murderous psychopaths like serial killers usually are pushed into their depraved behavior by horribly abusive and otherwise warped upbringings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your argument only works if the robot was programmed to be a monster.

Not true. It works just fine as long as the fact that he would become a monster was predictable.

 

[Thief]

Your argument only works if the robot was programmed to be a monster. Even murderous psychopaths like serial killers usually are pushed into their depraved behavior by horribly abusive and otherwise warped upbringings.

I don't believe that.

If bad experience renders bad spirit......without fail.....
None of us are headed to heaven.

We all suffer....and then we die.
If we are the solely the product of our living then we cannot be trusted to walk with grace among the angelic.
We will do harm.

Should we not lean to the notion?....we know better.

 

[Sir Doom]

It seems you have a narrow view of art.

As I am currently describing all of reality as a work of art, I'd say Its fairly broad. Please, feel free to widen my scope though.

I think you're missing my point. There's a difference between the actor and the character the actor plays. Killing off the character may be acceptable; killing off the actor playing the character is not. Not even if the script calls for it.

Well, I'm not talking about actors. I'm not sure how you could have thought I was.

Because they're fictional.

That's only half of the answer. What's the other half?

If a playwright arranged for the actors in his play to be killed, we would condemn him. If a performance artist decided that real people in his life were "characters" in his "art" and killed them, we could condemn him.

Again, not talking about actors. Not sure why you want to, either. Its not a good comparison. We wouldn't be actor's in God's play, we'd be the characters.

Then maybe it's deliberate obtuseness. Only you know for sure.

Its pretty clear to me that I know what fiction means. Not sure how I'd impress that upon you. Not even sure how I gave you the impression that I didn't understand it. I'm not saying fictional realities are the same as reality. What I'm saying is the author's perspective on their fictional reality is the same as God's perspective on reality (being that he's the author of it). I don't know how to make it more clear for you.

 

[idav]

Your argument only works if the robot was programmed to be a monster.

We know it is a monster when something is capable of it. It is inevitable. God chose that and is responsible.

Should we not lean to the notion?....we know better.

I like to think we know better. Maybe god gave us the blame once we knew better to let god off the hook. However we do not know better we are not omniscient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I am currently describing all of reality as a work of art, I'd say Its fairly broad. Please, feel free to widen my scope though.



Well, I'm not talking about actors. I'm not sure how you could have thought I was.



That's only half of the answer. What's the other half?



Again, not talking about actors. Not sure why you want to, either. Its not a good comparison. We wouldn't be actor's in God's play, we'd be the characters.



Its pretty clear to me that I know what fiction means. Not sure how I'd impress that upon you. Not even sure how I gave you the impression that I didn't understand it. I'm not saying fictional realities are the same as reality. What I'm saying is the author's perspective on their fictional reality is the same as God's perspective on reality (being that he's the author of it). I don't know how to make it more clear for you.

I'm not going to play this game with you any more. I refuse to believe that you really don't understand the difference between killing in fiction and killing in real life. You'll have to do your solipsistic navel-gazing with someone else.

 

[idav]

I'm not going to play this game with you any more. I refuse to believe that you really don't understand the difference between killing in fiction and killing in real life. You'll have to do your solipsistic navel-gazing with someone else.

One thing he mentioned is that an author has empathy for his creations. I said that the author then has favorites, like gods chosen few. He would care about the bad guy so far as it furthered his good guy, especially since the author likely knows where the story is headed.

Still doesn't mean the author is messing with actual beings so that analogy can only go so far, the author can't have full empathy when he knows deep down the characters are not real, as in fiction.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm not going to play this game with you any more. I refuse to believe that you really don't understand the difference between killing in fiction and killing in real life. You'll have to do your solipsistic navel-gazing with someone else.

One thing he mentioned is that an author has empathy for his creations. I said that the author then has favorites, like gods chosen few. He would care about the bad guy so far as it furthered his good guy, especially since the author likely knows where the story is headed.

Still doesn't mean the author is messing with actual beings so that analogy can only go so far, the author can't have full empathy when he knows deep down the characters are not real, as in fiction.

Fine, God is a monster. Have it your way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not true. It works just fine as long as the fact that he would become a monster was predictable.

As long as it had the choice to decide for itself, the responsibility lies with it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We know it is a monster when something is capable of it. It is inevitable. God chose that and is responsible.

We're all capable of being monsters, and we're capable of not being monsters. Even psychopaths can learn to control themselves.