Only one possible reason for the universe?

[ThePainefulTruth]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

 

[Rival]

How does this reason follow?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How does this reason follow?

God could have done, could do, anything else instantly, instead of going to all the trouble of putting us in this 13 billion year cocoon to isolate us from It's influence on our free will.

 

[Koldo]

God could have done, could do, anything else instantly, instead of going to all the trouble of putting us in this 13 billion year cocoon to isolate us from It's influence on our free will.

That presumes an omnipotent creator, and not just a supernatural consciousness.
Putting that aside, we might just be a by-product.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

No, it does not.

 

[Augustus]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, the one thing we can take for granted is that we certainly can't presuppose anything about them or believe that they operate using anything approaching human reasoning in anything they do.

It would make far less sense than taking psychoanalytical advice from an ant.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That presumes an omnipotent creator, and not just a supernatural consciousness.

Omnipotent creator and supernatural are pretty much two sides of the same coin that we don't even know exists. As I laid out, the issue of God goes back to the cause of the universe. If God (exists and has the power to create the universe, etc.), then we can presume powers beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean we can't speculate on the motivations of such a God if one does exist.

Putting that aside, we might just be a by-product.

A by-product of what?

No, it does not.

Couldn't an omnipotent God do anything else instantly?

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, the one thing we can take for granted is that we certainly can't presuppose anything about them or believe that they operate using anything approaching human reasoning in anything they do.

"They"? "Them"?
But there is one quality, a very precious gift, that an omnipotent God could bestow on us, self-awareness and its derivative, free will.

It would make far less sense than taking psychoanalytical advice from an ant.

Animals are innocent, having no full self-awareness and therefore no moral free will. The only like comparison would be comparing an adult to a 2 year old--except that God, if It exists, doesn't interact.

 

[Augustus]

"They"? "Them"?

Ok, "it" or whatever the correct pronoun is for a universal consciousness.

But there is one quality, a very precious gift, that an omnipotent God could bestow on us, self-awareness and its derivative, free will.

An omnipotent God could bestow whatever it like on us, it sort of goes with the territory of omnipotence.

You are confusing what you would like to believe an omnipotent God would do, with the range of potential options open to an omnipotent God.

Animals are innocent, having no full self-awareness and therefore no moral free will. The only like comparison would be comparing an adult to a 2 year old--except that God, if It exists, doesn't interact.

A 2 year old is a less developed adult. A human is not a less developed omnipotent God, it is a completely different beast.

To say that a human can grasp the concept of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is like saying an ant can grasp non-linear dynamics or advanced calculus.

As such all we know is that, of there is a God, we certainly can't believe we understand the way He 'thinks'.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ok, "it" or whatever the correct pronoun is for a universal consciousness.

I was merely wondering at the biblical/mythological nature of divine plurality.

An omnipotent God could bestow whatever it like on us, it sort of goes with the territory of omnipotence.

True, except that giving us free will requires that It set us free. Even the angels aren't free. And the devil is only the temptation to do wrong that exists within each of us.

You are confusing what you would like to believe an omnipotent God would do, with the range of potential options open to an omnipotent God.

How so? Giving us free will is the only thing that limits God's power. Yes, it's a self-imposed limitation, but a limitation nonetheless, thus the gift aspect.

A 2 year old is a less developed adult. A human is not a less developed omnipotent God, it is a completely different beast.

It's an analogy. It also breaks down because adult humans guide and teach children, but God must not interact with us. The point is the likeness of God's and man's self-awareness and moral free will--if God exists.

To say that a human can grasp the concept of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is like saying an ant can grasp non-linear dynamics or advanced calculus.

I'm certainly not saying that. Please read my last entry, that's our only likeness.

As such all we know is that, of there is a God, we certainly can't believe we understand the way He 'thinks'.

One simple likeness that would explain God's laissez faire Prime Directive, in no way implies an understanding or knowledge of any other divine quality. It's a connection to God (if It exists) which presents a more satisfying answer to all the "Why?'s" in life that a belief in an interactive God can't provide (see Job). And then of course there's atheism. I choose agnostic-deism over atheism because the only difference between the two for us in this life, is hope.

 

[psychoslice]

The universe is what it is, there is no reason for it, so stop making excuses for it, and simple live and enjoy.

 

[Koldo]

Omnipotent creator and supernatural are pretty much two sides of the same coin that we don't even know exists. As I laid out, the issue of God goes back to the cause of the universe. If God (exists and has the power to create the universe, etc.), then we can presume powers beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean we can't speculate on the motivations of such a God if one does exist.

Sure. But it doesn't follow that a creator must be omnipotent.

A by-product of what?

The process of creation. For instance, the creator might have wanted to create Pluto, and that's it.
It is not like we, humans, want sewer rats to breed, and yet we often create environments that help them breed safe from predators.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

And in one, sure swing logical inference was vanquished. Rationality and Reason, those greatest sins that insidiously emerged amongst humankind down throughout the ages, were finally put to rest by an omnipotent Creator somehow necessarily incapable of creating a universe for fun, for kicks, for amusement, for companionship, or for any countless number of reasons. And Lo! It follows from God's endless Power and Might that his existence entails a singular purpose for us sentient beings, and our sentience is freed forever from the chains of argumentation, justification, and logic.

Short version: of course that doesn't follow. There is no justified, let alone necessary, step from "if the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness" to "there is only one reason for it to have done so" (regardless of the reason proffered). Sheesh.

 

[Koldo]

And then of course there's atheism. I choose agnostic-deism over atheism because the only difference between the two for us in this life, is hope.

This is strikingly odd. There is nothing in atheism that precludes an afterlife.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The universe is what it is, there is no reason for it, so stop making excuses for it, and simple live and enjoy.

Are you suggesting that I stop thinking? That'd be the same thing as not living. I won't criticize your lack of curiosity, if you won't deride me for having one.

Sure. But it doesn't follow that a creator must be omnipotent.

Looking at the universe, I don't know how we'd ever be able to tell the difference. What are you suggesting anyway, "almost" omnipotent? Hmm, close only counts with hand grenades, atom bombs, and God eh?

The process of creation. For instance, the creator might have wanted to create Pluto, and that's it.
It is not like we, humans, want sewer rats to breed, and yet we often create environments that help them breed safe from predators.

Now you've wandered off into the theater of the absurd, though I've often characterized the universe as a stage where sentients can exercise their free will without divine influence.

And in one, sure swing logical inference was vanquished. Rationality and Reason, those greatest sins that insidiously emerged amongst humankind down throughout the ages, were finally put to rest by an omnipotent Creator somehow necessarily incapable of creating a universe for fun, for kicks, for amusement, for companionship, or for any countless number of reasons. And Lo! It follows from God's endless Power and Might that his existence entails a singular purpose for us sentient beings, and our sentience is freed forever from the chains of argumentation, justification, and logic.

Short version: of course that doesn't follow. There is no justified, let alone necessary, step from "if the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness" to "there is only one reason for it to have done so" (regardless of the reason proffered). Sheesh.

You miss the point, which is that an omnipotent Creator could have accomplished any creation, other than sentients with free will, instantly. If you want to argue that point, please give an example.

BTW, it's strange that you should mention divine companionship, since that's exactly the reason I've often suggested that God would want to create creatures with free will. Anything else would be a yes-man, or yes-angel if you will. In fact I wrote this little divine comedy a few years ago to make exactly that point:

***BIG BANG!***

<<><>><<><>>

<<><><><>><<><><><>>

<<><>The Universe Begins<><>>


God (Voiceof James Earl Jones) : Gabriel, isn't this a beautiful universe I created?
Gabriel (Voice of Sylvester Stallone): Yes Boss.
God: (Sigh). Adam, what about you, what do you think of the universe?
Adam (voice of Eddie Murphy): Oh, it’s absolutely delightful. I particularly like those sparkly little galaxies, and you just can't beat a brilliant sunset by the ocean or a thunderstorm over the Grand Canyon. I won't even go into women, you hit the jackpot with that one. But those black holes are a holy terror. And WHY is everything SO----FAR----APART. Man-o-man, the nearest star is 4 light years away. What were you thinking? And couldn't you at least do something about those damn mosquitoes. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but if I'd have arranged things......
God: (Sigh)………(Smile)

This is strikingly odd. There is nothing in atheism that precludes an afterlife.

Touché. But don't you think it's odd that you're the first atheist I've ever come across to suggest that, if you are indeed an atheist. But it does make sense that if we don't have a clue about how the universe could have come to be spontaneously, then who can argue against a spontaneous afterlife.

The really odd part about creation is that the mode of it's creation is so perfectly hidden with no evidence for or against a Creator or anything. You'd think that if the universe was spontaneous without any design or whatever, that some evidence for the mechanism would have presented itself by now. The complete lack of evidence suggests an agenda, but then you can't use a lack of evidence...as evidence. Clever.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You miss the point, which is that an omnipotent Creator could have accomplished any creation, other than sentients with free will, instantly.

I didn't miss the point. I object to the incredibly poor use of logical inference behind this statement:

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

This doesn't follows. At all. There is no justification, no logical basis, no rational reason, or anything other than pure, illogical fantasy for supposing your consequent/apodosis follows from your protasis/antecedent.

If you want to argue that point, please give an example.

That's not a point. Granting that an omnipotent god or supernatural whatever could have created an alternative universe, doesn't in any possible sense dictate the REASON for not doing so. There is nothing logical behind "X could have done Y, but because X didn't, necessarily this was because of Z." More concretely, "I could have bought anything at the grocery store, but I bought vegetables, therefor I'm a vegan organic farmer opposed to socialized healthcare."

You start with an assumption (the antecedent of your conditional), and reason that given it is true, then something follows. Except that given the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, nothing whatsoever follows such that you can assert the reason this entity created the universe (even given the universe created).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I didn't miss the point. I object to the incredibly poor use of logical inference behind this statement:

You say that, but then offer nothing to back it up. You criticize my technique, but not the substance. If you can't or won't answer the question, this lets move on.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You say that, but then offer nothing to back it up.

I don't need to, but I did anyway. You seem to think your inference is something other than a laughable attempt at validity, but give no argument for why your antecedent (if assumed) justifies your consequent, and I gave plenty of counter-examples (God did it for fun, etc.). In other words, I gave perfectly valid alternatives to your "the only reason" nonsense, you couldn't justify why these aren't possible nor could you defend your justification for asserting that for some reason the creator of the universe must, simply by virtue of the nature of that creation, must have created it for one and only one reason. The problem is you lack anything remotely resembling a valid link between the assumption of a creator, this supernatural being's creation, and your fundamental conclusion: the reason for this creation such that there is one and only one.

You criticize my technique, but not the substance.

You assumed a supernatural creator (given thanks to the conditional itself), and then stated without any logical reason that the creator must have had the particular reason for creating that you asserted. I offered other clearly logically allowed alternatives, you didn't even deny them, you haven't given even a hint as to why they or any number of other reasons can't be possible, but you still claim to have offered any substance? You made an illogical inference that you have failed to justify despite counter-examples, you can't offer any justification, and your argument reduces to "if there's a supernatural creator, then I think the reason for creation is X." Fantastic. You are free to think whatever you wish about the assumed creator's motivations. My problem is the assertion that this is anything other than opinion falsely masquerading as an argument with some sort of rational basis.

If you can't or won't answer the question, this lets move on.

You didn't ask a question. You made a fallacious inference you have yet to support.

 

[Koldo]

Looking at the universe, I don't know how we'd ever be able to tell the difference. What are you suggesting anyway, "almost" omnipotent? Hmm, close only counts with hand grenades, atom bombs, and God eh?

Not even close to omnipotence is required to create our universe.
For instance, being able to intervene in our universe is a must for omnipotence. 'To create' doesn't entail the ability 'to intervene' though.

Now you've wandered off into the theater of the absurd, though I've often characterized the universe as a stage where sentients can exercise their free will without divine influence.

What's absurd about what I have said ?

Touché. But don't you think it's odd that you're the first atheist I've ever come across to suggest that, if you are indeed an atheist. But it does make sense that if we don't have a clue about how the universe could have come to be spontaneously, then who can argue against a spontaneous afterlife.

Atheism is often reached through skepticism towards the supernatural, which is why so many atheists don't believe in an afterlife.

The really odd part about creation is that the mode of it's creation is so perfectly hidden with no evidence for or against a Creator or anything. You'd think that if the universe was spontaneous without any design or whatever, that some evidence for the mechanism would have presented itself by now. The complete lack of evidence suggests an agenda, but then you can't use a lack of evidence...as evidence. Clever.

What kind of evidence would you expect ? Can you cite one example ?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't need to, but I did anyway. You seem to think your inference is something other than a laughable attempt at validity, but give no argument for why your antecedent (if assumed) justifies your consequent, and I gave plenty of counter-examples (God did it for fun, etc.).

Those other examples could have been accomplished by a omnipotent God instantly, except for the companionship, which is what sentient creatures have the capacity to be, even for God. They just need to be tested first.

You dismiss the OP because you say I offer no reasoning. I think it's obvious myself, but instead of asking any questions, you just go off on a self-righteous huff, saying that if I didn't offer the evidence right away, I'm obviously wrong--"laughably' I believe you put it.

I think you've been so busy thinking up denigrating/uncivil words and phrases to cast that you still don't even know what I'm getting at. Classic compensation behavior.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

No, it does not.

Couldn't an omnipotent God do anything else instantly?

First, omnipotence is less simplistic than you seem to think. Second, your original post spoke of "supernatural consciousness," not "omnipotent God." Please try to remember from one post to the next what you're talking about.

But, since you want to meander into the realm of omnipotence, let me ask you this: Could an omnipotent God do something with unintended consequences or without 'caring' about collateral consequences? And you know this how?