Gods responsibility

[Mycroft]

Its a hypothetical fir a sentience we would create. The sentience has to be programmed to some extent.

Please stop confusing the word hypthetical for nonsense. You have no evidence to suggest that anything you have said would have any basis in reality, you're merely projecting human characteristic onto something for which you have no frame of reference for beyond hollywood movies.

 

[idav]

Please stop confusing the word hypthetical for nonsense. You have no evidence to suggest that anything you have said would have any basis in reality, you're merely projecting human characteristic onto something for which you have no frame of reference for beyond hollywood movies.

The analogy is to deconstruct gods motives for creating a sentient being that ultimately is bad for the world and its other inhabitants who also inflict harm on one another..

 

[idav]

Uhm, didn't god initially decide to destroy us all with the story the Noah and the ark? So, though your stating it's his fault, in theory atleast, are you glad he didn't destroy us or would you of rather he did?

The destruction suggests god made a mistake which is odd. Destroying us certainly wouldnt be a very good day, there should be another way without compromising our freedoms. Having at the very I least our basic needs met would be a start, heck having needs to begin with is problematic.

 

[Mycroft]

The analogy is to deconstruct gods motives for creating a sentient being that ultimately is bad for the world and its other inhabitants who also inflict harm on one another..

Well since I believe that there is no god, the analogy is wasted. All I see you doing is projecting your own expectations of responsibility onto this alleged superbeing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a sense will is desire.

I don't see how this changes anything. As I tried to get at, free will isn't a matter of choosing our will or desires; it's a matter of choosing whether to act on them.

Do you choose your own desires?

If it knows what will happen then it isnt free to do otherwise. Omniscience should be open to possibilities. If a then b and if a1 then b1 else c.

What definition of "omnipotence" are you working from? Using the one I'm most familiar with (something like "the capability to do all things, or to do all things that are not logically contradictory"), there's no conflict between omnipotence and any sort of omniscience or foreknowledge. Knowing what will happen doesn't negate what could have happened.

 

[Thief]

The destruction suggests god made a mistake which is odd. Destroying us certainly wouldnt be a very good day, there should be another way without compromising our freedoms. Having at the very I least our basic needs met would be a start, heck having needs to begin with is problematic.

So God should have made other forms of life as perfect as He is?

Wouldn't that be no more than a reflection?
His exact being and voice in two places at once?

Some say He can do this.

But if was only Him and His own Echo......
He would be talking to Himself.

Therefore the 'other being' would have to be......'something less'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So God should have made other forms of life as perfect as He is?

Wouldn't that be no more than a reflection?
His exact being and voice in two places at once?

Some say He can do this.

But if was only Him and His own Echo......
He would be talking to Himself.

Therefore the 'other being' would have to be......'something less'.

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

 

[idav]

Well since I believe that there is no god, the analogy is wasted. All I see you doing is projecting your own expectations of responsibility onto this alleged superbeing.

I suppose so. Such a superbeing likely doesn't care two hoots about such drama. If we are created then there is responsibility, if not then the super being is malevolent or can't do anything about it and isn't all powerful.

Do you choose your own desires?

I hope so or nature chooses them for me.

What definition of "omnipotence" are you working from? Using the one I'm most familiar with (something like "the capability to do all things, or to do all things that are not logically contradictory"), there's no conflict between omnipotence and any sort of omniscience or foreknowledge. Knowing what will happen doesn't negate what could have happened.

One of them has to give. If I know what I will do then I am powerless to do otherwise. If I am powerful enough to do otherwise then I can't know what I choose. That isn't so much that it's contradictory but one power can't be omni. It may be you can know what you ultimately decide but I'm not 100% on that.

So God should have made other forms of life as perfect as He is?

What kind of perfect God has to fix a mistake with mass genocide? Maybe we really do go after our maker then.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

It would be the scientist's fault if they knew what would happen and they created it and let it loose anyway.

Let say God gave man freewill and knew evil would result. I suppose it was necessary for Noah to see the results of man allowing himself to be a slave to sin. So a bunch of robots go on the rampage and murder most of the earth. One robot sees this path leads to destruction and chooses a different path. The scientist secures this robot and scraps the rest.

 

[Sir Doom]

They would rationally deduce their reasoning. Maybe just wants power.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Who is they? And who 'maybe just wants power'?

If god is sending in all sorts of evils at us it doesn't seem all that fair. Then your just messing with your creation. I can see why people might think god is malevolent.

Fair in what sense? What is the goal of 'sending in all sorts of evils' and what is the 'fair' alternative that achieves that goal? You should have considerable difficulty answering either question without actually being God.

 

[idav]

.... So a bunch of robots go on the rampage and murder most of the earth. One robot sees this path leads to destruction and chooses a different path. The scientist secures this robot and scraps the rest.

This story sounds familiar. It would inevitably happen again as long as they are free to choose, so more mass genocide for future evils.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Who is they? And who 'maybe just wants power'?

They, the creations, would deduce they need power. It could happen.

Fair in what sense? What is the goal of 'sending in all sorts of evils' and what is the 'fair' alternative that achieves that goal? You should have considerable difficulty answering either question without actually being God.

Not fair in the sense of causing sentient beings unneeded suffering. Don't know of a scenario where suffering be needed anyhow.

It really does depend on what god wants from his creation. Why an all powerful entity would create at all is a tough one. In the case of god wanting worship one would think god should deserve it. If its just art or pleasure then god is maniacal. Any greater good aspect doesn't make much sense either cause there are always alternatives to inflicting pain and suffering. Not any motives I can think of swing good favor towards the creator of such worlds where evil is purposely inflicted to test and what not.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I would hold the scientist responsible for unleashing a monster.

God (being the playwright of all this) allows for temporary suffering BUT eventual victory for all. This is all a great play and life lasts for ages (not 80 or so years). In the bigger picture you can see the sense.

 

[Sir Doom]

They, the creations, would deduce they need power. It could happen.

I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying Tolkien is not responsible for the evil that orcs in his novels do?

Not fair in the sense of causing sentient beings unneeded suffering.

How do you know it isn't needed?

Don't know of a scenario where suffering be needed anyhow.

See? You have no idea. How can you be so certain it is unnecessary?

It really does depend on what god wants from his creation.

That's right. And since you can't possibly have any idea what that is, its premature to suggest he's doing it wrong.

Why an all powerful entity would create at all is a tough one.

LOL! So you can't even begin to figure why such a being would create ANYTHING, and yet you are willing to speculate on God's position about the incredibly nuanced, subjective and mostly arbitrary notion of evil? Come on... if you can do one, you can do the other.

In the case of god wanting worship one would think god should deserve it.

Naturally, you get to determine what God deserves when it comes to your worship.

If its just art or pleasure then god is maniacal.

Artists are maniacs. Gotcha.

Any greater good aspect doesn't make much sense either cause there are always alternatives to inflicting pain and suffering.

For example?

Not any motives I can think of swing good favor towards the creator of such worlds where evil is purposely inflicted to test and what not.

Why not? How would you do it?

 

[sojourner]

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.

This is such a moot issue. If the robot had free will, the robot would be self-determining and therefore culpable for its own actions. Courts long ago decided that gun manufacturers could not be held responsible for crimes committed with their products.

 

[idav]

I would hold the scientist responsible for unleashing a monster.

God (being the playwright of all this) allows for temporary suffering BUT eventual victory for all. This is all a great play and life lasts for ages (not 80 or so years). In the bigger picture you can see the sense.

For the "greater good" seems like a scapegoat because the suffering still happens. Even if it were just a dream there was still suffering and not necessary. People get relief by being told this, cause thats what they want to hear but some of the atrocities I couldn't dare try and tell it to a parent or child or whomever.

I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying Tolkien is not responsible for the evil that orcs in his novels do?

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

That's right. And since you can't possibly have any idea what that is, its premature to suggest he's doing it wrong.

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

LOL! So you can't even begin to figure why such a being would create ANYTHING, and yet you are willing to speculate on God's position about the incredibly nuanced, subjective and mostly arbitrary notion of evil? Come on... if you can do one, you can do the other.

Tough not impossible.

Artists are maniacs. Gotcha.

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

For example?
Why not? How would you do it?

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.

This is such a moot issue. If the robot had free will, the robot would be self-determining and therefore culpable for its own actions. Courts long ago decided that gun manufacturers could not be held responsible for crimes committed with their products.

Interesting. I tend to agree. However guns aren't subject to just killing for crimes but can be used to hunt. We can't deprive people of hunting because people kill, we hold the person responsible cause the person has free will not the gun. A gun manufacturer doesn't let the gun loose to do things on it's own, if they did they would be told to stop.

 

[sojourner]

we hold the person responsible cause the person has free will not the gun.

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

 

[idav]

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

That is why you can't use making a gun as a comparison to making something with free will. Someone making something powerful and with free will should also face the consequences. Look at what happens when a dog owner lets there dog loose and it bites. That dog has free will but there is an owner who is even less culpable than a designer/owner.

 

[George-ananda]

For the "greater good" seems like a scapegoat because the suffering still happens. Even if it were just a dream there was still suffering and not necessary. People get relief by being told this, cause thats what they want to hear but some of the atrocities I couldn't dare try and tell it to a parent or child or whomever.

This is all a divine play. With drama and temporary suffering in the middle and a happy ending for all. God creates the masterpiece of the universe and plays all the roles. You can't judge a masterpiece painting by standing 1 inch away.

From our perspective we just react to suffering with compassion (which includes trying to prevent it in the future). We shouldn't tell the parent it's for a 'greater good' unless that's part of his philosophy and would comfort him. In some cases just compassion is all we can offer.

 

[sojourner]

That is why you can't use making a gun as a comparison to making something with free will. Someone making something powerful and with free will should also face the consequences. Look at what happens when a dog owner lets there dog loose and it bites. That dog has free will but there is an owner who is even less culpable than a designer/owner.

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.

 

[Pegg]

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.

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.