Gods responsibility

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

To the extent that they have the ability to regard him at all, sure.

Do you believe that fictional characters are self-aware?

 

[idav]

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

Just as much as an uncaring author creating chaos in their realms for the amusement of others.

Yeah, and the earth came from God.

Yes

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.

Thats why I showed you what they are using it for in quantum computing. If it wasnt both at the same time they couldn't use the superpositions for processing parrallel processes. The issue is they still dont know, cant predict the outcome, without error correcting, so knowing the bits as you said is impossible, or can be made impossible to predict in programming quantum machines.

 

[idav]

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.

That is interesting the story being about jews from the holocaust indicting god, whom are supposed to be chosen people who were saved from slavery. One of the strengths of christianity is the hope that god is coming back to end the suffering, jews waiting for a messiah. People believe god is going to take care of things. The fact that many feel the time is nigh is an indication they believe god is letting it get to far, that god has had it, yet we still wait patiently. Humans are making the difference, struggling to. We have police and other agencies to stop this stuff. I feel like humans do try but too much remains out of our control, control that god supposedly has.

 

[Sir Doom]

To the extent that they have the ability to regard him at all, sure.

That's very interesting. The evil characters along with the good ones? The should all regard him the same? Or should there be some degree of variance depending on the individual attitudes of the characters?

Do you believe that fictional characters are self-aware?

That depends on the author, I suppose. Why does it matter?

Just as much as an uncaring author creating chaos in their realms for the amusement of others.

Naturally, that author must be uncaring. No emotional investment in their creation whatsoever. No identification with characters at all. Just pure, unadulterated sadism, right? That's the only option? I find that more than a bit cynical.

 

[idav]

Naturally, that author must be uncaring. No emotional investment in their creation whatsoever. No identification with characters at all. Just pure, unadulterated sadism, right? That's the only option? I find that more than a bit cynical.

I have thought that its cool to have a world where magic is real. At least there intervention of god, the supernatural is apparent.

Now would you figure that the author cares about each character equally or cares for onky some as far as they allow the main favorites to get through? There is a lot to consider when the creator, cares for the creations, and how much would be in question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That depends on the author, I suppose. Why does it matter?

I didn't ask if they were depicted as self-aware; I asked if they were self-aware. A representation of a person is not a person itself.

What sort of magical author has the ability to make his characters self-aware in reality?

 

[Sir Doom]

I have thought that its cool to have a world where magic is real. At least there intervention of god, the supernatural is apparent.

I thought the thread was about the moral responsibility of the creator for the creation. Was I wrong about that? Would you rather argue whether or not God exists?

Now would you figure that the author cares about each character equally or cares for onky some as far as they allow the main favorites to get through?

I assume that varies from author to author.

There is a lot to consider when the creator, cares for the creations, and how much would be in question.

I agree. Its not a black and white issue. Its not good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral. That's way too simple to explain the creator of all reality.

I didn't ask if they were depicted as self-aware; I asked if they were self-aware. A representation of a person is not a person itself.

If there is an omnipotent author of reality, then it regards us the same as we regard characters in a novel.

What sort of magical author has the ability to make his characters self-aware in reality?

Any that use meta-fiction, I suppose. I wouldn't call it magic, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is an omnipotent author of reality, then it regards us the same as we regard characters in a novel.

Does he now?

I'm not talking about how God views us; I'm talking about how things actually are.

Any that use meta-fiction, I suppose. I wouldn't call it magic, though.

I think you're having trouble with the concept of fiction generally.

 

[idav]

I thought the thread was about the moral responsibility of the creator for the creation. Was I wrong about that? Would you rather argue whether or not God exists?

The thing about that is that the author is making a fantastical world, could presumably be better than ours which is the art of fiction writing. One where there are gods, sorcerors and fairies, people seem to like that stuff but doesn't mean people want to live it.

Some fictions are dystopias(opposite of utopia), as in, not how we want reality or the future to be. So what we deem entertaining, like what is found in books and movies, may not be the way we would want our world to be, and doesn't follow that the author necessarily wants reality to be like that either.

I assume that varies from author to author.

Don't doubt it. Also we can't really say that the way an author would write fiction, would necessarily be the way they would write all of reality as a super god. That is an important question. Like when their favorite character dies, would they write it differently if it was their loved ones, their mom or dad, child, spouse, brother?

 

[Sir Doom]

Does he now?

If God is an artist, surely.

I'm not talking about how God views us; I'm talking about how things actually are.

Pretty sure the OP suggests we take Gods existence for granted, at least hypothetically. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to even talk about blaming it for evil. Naturally, we are to assume evil is a thing as well.

So, God's perspective is like the author's perspective towards their fictional universe. It is their intellectual creation, molded and shaped by their imagination (continually in many cases). Thus, the culpability of God for the disaster's and terrible things in reality is similar to the author's culpability for the same sorts of things (often far more terrible, in fact) in their fictional universe. We do not consider the author evil for their creation (despite the inclusion of evil within it), why do we consider God evil for actual creation (because of the evil within it)?

I think you're having trouble with the concept of fiction generally.

I don't think that I am.

The thing about that is that the author is making a fantastical world, could presumably be better than ours which is the art of fiction writing. One where there are gods, sorcerors and fairies, people seem to like that stuff but doesn't mean people want to live it.

That's true. Its beside the point, but its true.

Some fictions are dystopias(opposite of utopia), as in, not how we want reality or the future to be. So what we deem entertaining, like what is found in books and movies, may not be the way we would want our world to be, and doesn't follow that the author necessarily wants reality to be like that either.

That's right. Its almost like there is another purpose to creating the dystopia aside from shear sadism. Which of course, is my entire point.

Don't doubt it. Also we can't really say that the way an author would write fiction, would necessarily be the way they would write all of reality as a super god. That is an important question. Like when their favorite character dies, would they write it differently if it was their loved ones, their mom or dad, child, spouse, brother?

Would they create the character at all if the loved one had never died?

 

[sojourner]

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:



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

I can provide more examples all day if you like.

Oh my! ONE example. This is a clear case of the fallacy of Misleading Vividness.
And, since I'm American, I use the example from American legal precedent, knowing full well that it's an example to prove a point, and not the point, itself.

 

[sojourner]

I can provide more examples all day if you like.

No need. It's a red herring that doesn't really speak to the OP.

 

[sojourner]

There doesn't seem to be justification for god with this, if he intentionally allowed evil then it follows it is gods fault.

This is like holding the government responsible for crime, for creating living conditions that allow people the freedom to commit those crimes. It simply does not work that way. The culpability clearly lies with the individual committing the crime, not the maker of that individual, or with the maker of the system. I know of no legal precedent in this country where the US government was held liable for any crime committed by an individual or group, just because the government maintains a societal system that allows enough personal freedom for crime to be committed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes they use the knowledge to inflict good or evil. Maybe they conclude we are a parasite.

Some humans have concluded the same about other humans. The evil they inflict on others is their own doing.

 

[idav]

This is like holding the government responsible for crime, for creating living conditions that allow people the freedom to commit those crimes. It simply does not work that way. The culpability clearly lies with the individual committing the crime, not the maker of that individual, or with the maker of the system. I know of no legal precedent in this country where the US government was held liable for any crime committed by an individual or group, just because the government maintains a societal system that allows enough personal freedom for crime to be committed.

Thats not at all the same and there are many cases where they wont go directly to the person committing the crime but even go after indirect responsibility. Like bars being liable for letting someone drive drunk. As long as there is probable cause.

http://www.plea.org/legal_resources/?a=625&searchTxt=&cat=5

 

[idav]

Some humans have concluded the same about other humans. The evil they inflict on others is their own doing.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No need. It's a red herring that doesn't really speak to the OP.

It speaks to your point. If you're going to dismiss your point as irrelevant, I won't dispute you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God is an artist, surely.

It seems you have a narrow view of art.

Pretty sure the OP suggests we take Gods existence for granted, at least hypothetically. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to even talk about blaming it for evil. Naturally, we are to assume evil is a thing as well.

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.

So, God's perspective is like the author's perspective towards their fictional universe. It is their intellectual creation, molded and shaped by their imagination (continually in many cases). Thus, the culpability of God for the disaster's and terrible things in reality is similar to the author's culpability for the same sorts of things (often far more terrible, in fact) in their fictional universe. We do not consider the author evil for their creation (despite the inclusion of evil within it), why do we consider God evil for actual creation (because of the evil within it)?

Because they're fictional.

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.

I don't think that I am.

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



That's true. Its beside the point, but its true.



That's right. Its almost like there is another purpose to creating the dystopia aside from shear sadism. Which of course, is my entire point.



Would they create the character at all if the loved one had never died?[/QUOTE]

 

[sojourner]

Thats not at all the same and there are many cases where they wont go directly to the person committing the crime but even go after indirect responsibility. Like bars being liable for letting someone drive drunk. As long as there is probable cause.

http://www.plea.org/legal_resources/?a=625&searchTxt=&cat=5

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.

 

[sojourner]

It speaks to your point. If you're going to dismiss your point as irrelevant, I won't dispute you.

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.