James Cameron is a better God than Yahweh!

[RitalinO.D.]

James Cameron is a crappy God, because when he created Titanic, he got the sequence of events that led to the shipwreck patently WRONG. If a guy can't even get a shipwreck right from less than a century ago, what hope is there that he could create a world better than the one we've got now? Hah?!

You take that back! :fight:

 

[PolyHedral]

"Omnipotence" does not include "making reality without suffering and evil."

Really? Because if you gave me God's knowledge of physics, computing, biology, geography and geology, and a few nanomachines, I could probably do it. It's not actually that hard, given the resources and logistical ability we're talking about.

Long story short, if you don't believe God, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE???

Because I find the idea that this is best of all possible worlds so ignorant and unimaginative as to be offensive.

No matter what you can come up with, I can come up with something that makes that place equally worse.

To start with: Pandora, modified to 1) get rid of the electromagnetism failures on Cameron's part, 2) make the Na'vi functionally invincible.

Also, are you sure you can do this for every possible idea I can come up with?

James Cameron is a crappy God, because when he created Titanic, he got the sequence of events that led to the shipwreck patently WRONG.

Well, nobody's perfect. ...Not even those who should be: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."

 

[Magic Man]

Once again:

We can imagine all sorts of things, true. But what we can't do is imagine every single aspect of our imaginary world, such that that world could be part of reality. I'm not going to argue the whole dumb "well, if God was omnipotent, then God could have created thus-and-such." Clearly, you're right. James Cameron is a much better God than God ever thought of being. Why don't you write and tell him so, and see if he agrees with you?

God does not operate outside the reality that is God. Even if you think God should. "Omnipotence" does not include "making reality without suffering and evil." Whether you think it should, or not.

Actually, omnipotence means exactly that. It means "making anything you want". What you're basically saying is that God is not omnipotent because he can only create things the way they are. You're saying this is the only possible way things could be, because this is reality.

I do understand what you're saying, that we can't conceive of all the small details of our made-up worlds. I get that. However, the point is we can at the very least think of a few things here and there that could be different in our own world. And besides an omnipotent god should be able to make all of the little details work.

Long story short, if you don't believe God, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE??? Leading me to surmise that all the bull crap is nothing more than a God-bashing session perpetrated by frustrated atheists.

Yes, the classic response. We care because so many people believe in your god, and it affects us. Aside from that, it's also fascinating that people believe such things. But I understand that it probably helps you feel better to think of it as "a God-bashing session perpetrated by frustrated atheists". That's much easier to take than realizing it's people bringing up legitimate logical arguments against your dearly-held beliefs, just because your beliefs don't make sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

James Cameron is a crappy God, because when he created Titanic, he got the sequence of events that led to the shipwreck patently WRONG. If a guy can't even get a shipwreck right from less than a century ago, what hope is there that he could create a world better than the one we've got now? Hah?!

Even in Avatar, I had problems with "God" James Cameron's creation: the avatars were effectively slaves... either that or murdered.

The avatars were living, breathing, (presumably) thinking creatures, and we knew they were sentient and sapient by the fact that other Navi had no problem thinking, reasoning and expressing themselves, but the avatars' minds were either wiped or suppressed in order to have other minds inserted. They were bred to be slaves.

But Cameron never dealt with this at all. He simply ignored the issue and held up one of the "slavers" as the hero of the story. And in my books, any God who tacitly endorses slavery leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Willamena]

Because I find the idea that this is best of all possible worlds so ignorant and unimaginative as to be offensive.

Reality offends you?


(What's wrong with this picture?)

 

[PolyHedral]

But Cameron never dealt with this at all. He simply ignored the issue and held up one of the "slavers" as the hero of the story. And in my books, any God who tacitly endorses slavery leaves a lot to be desired.

You're right that it's a very very sticky issue, and it's mostly matter-of-factly explained in the background materials and then dropped entirely. The ending also outright demonstrates that they have the capability of individual thought, even if they don't/can't use it.

However, I would say the rest of the movie makes clear that Cameron doesn't endorse anything the humans do. All but 5 or 6 humans are portrayed as completely evil at worst, "just following orders" at best, and those 5 or 6 are best described as "honorary Na'vi." The only character of any moral complexity in that sense is Selfridge, and I'm not sure that was even intentional, since the only reason to find him sympathetic at all is his wordless reaction near the end, and how much of that was in the script is unclear. I would assume that Cameron wants us to put the moral stickiness of... whatever construct the avatar actually is under the same umbrella as everything else obviously "evil" the humans have done. (as shown by Jake's over-the-top "They killed their mother!" exposition.)

Reality offends you?

(What's wrong with this picture?)

I don't know. Have you misinterpreted me? This reality isn't the best of all possible realities, and that's quite obvious. I find the suggestion that it is offensive, because it implies that the person suggesting it isn't actually paying that much attention to the world.

 

[Penumbra]

Even in Avatar, I had problems with "God" James Cameron's creation: the avatars were effectively slaves... either that or murdered.

The avatars were living, breathing, (presumably) thinking creatures, and we knew they were sentient and sapient by the fact that other Navi had no problem thinking, reasoning and expressing themselves, but the avatars' minds were either wiped or suppressed in order to have other minds inserted. They were bred to be slaves.

But Cameron never dealt with this at all. He simply ignored the issue and held up one of the "slavers" as the hero of the story. And in my books, any God who tacitly endorses slavery leaves a lot to be desired.

If I recall, the avatars were grown specifically for the purpose. They never had sentience, so they were basically biological shells.

 

[PolyHedral]

If I recall, the avatars were grown specifically for the purpose. They never had sentience, so they were basically biological shells.

Though they do have working brains, otherwise the trick they pulled at the end wouldn't have worked.

 

[jonadab]

We have brought about most of the problems on the earth.
This is not what Yahweh intended, or purposes for the future.​

Deuteronomy 32:4-5
4 The Rock, perfect is his activity,
For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice;
Righteous and upright is he.
5 They have acted ruinously on their own part;
They are not his children, the defect is their own.
A generation crooked and twisted!​

 

[Willamena]

I don't know. Have you misinterpreted me? This reality isn't the best of all possible realities, and that's quite obvious. I find the suggestion that it is offensive, because it implies that the person suggesting it isn't actually paying that much attention to the world.

I must be minunderstanding, because it sounds to me like you're suggesting that possible realities can become actualities. Because that's the only way they could be "better" than actual reality.

That's insanity, in a nut shell.

 

[PolyHedral]

I must be minunderstanding, because it sounds to me like you're suggesting that possible realities can become actualities. Because that's the only way they could be "better" than actual reality.

God, ostensibly, starts with a "blank slate." He then decides to create reality, and being all-powerful and loving, He decides to create the best possible reality for us to live in. Thus, this premise predicts the world we find ourselves in is the best (i.e. produces most happiness) of all possibilities, and thus we cannot imagine a world better than it.

I'm arguing that's absurd, by citing the counterexample of Pandora. It is quite obviously a better world to live in, and so any premise that concludes that Earth is the best of all possible worlds is unarguably wrong. James Cameron is better at inventing a world in which the inhabitants are happy than Yahweh, if we accept the premise that Yahweh created the Earth.

 

[Willamena]

God, ostensibly, starts with a "blank slate." He then decides to create reality, and being all-powerful and loving, He decides to create the best possible reality for us to live in. Thus, this premise predicts the world we find ourselves in is the best (i.e. produces most happiness) of all possibilities, and thus we cannot imagine a world better than it.

I'm arguing that's absurd, by citing the counterexample of Pandora. It is quite obviously a better world to live in, and so any premise that concludes that Earth is the best of all possible worlds is unarguably wrong. James Cameron is better at inventing a world in which the inhabitants are happy than Yahweh, if we accept the premise that Yahweh created the Earth.

It is absurd. The premise assumes that benevolence precedes existence, yet it exists. That is the basic problem with a creator that is given to have attributes/characteristics.

I still don't see Pandora as being essentially better, though. It has all the same features as our world, just shuffled up a bit.

 

[Me Myself]

And how are you certain that that act wouldn't upset some balance and create repercussions that you're not aware of?
Look -- this is very simple: The OP assumes that a fantasy world is better than the real world. Again, I reiterate the reality that the fantasy world is not the world. We are not shown every facet of reality in this fantasy world. If this fantasy world could be possible -- it would be!

So ... w as God unable to do it?

Why would he be unable to do this kind of world without repercutions?

Was he not omnipotent?

 

[PolyHedral]

It is absurd. The premise assumes that benevolence precedes existence, yet it exists. That is the basic problem with a creator that is given to have attributes/characteristics.

I still don't see Pandora as being essentially better, though. It has all the same features as our world, just shuffled up a bit.

It assumes that God's benevolence precedes the existence only of the world. God himself, benevolence included, must exist before the world does.