Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Euld]

Volatile post --> people responding to volatile post with more volatile posts --> tantrum spiral

 

[Grek]

I wouldn't really call it escalated. I mean, admittedly calling every single Christian, Muslim and Jew evil is probably excessive, but at least Nadaka is honest about how he feels.

Also, this thread is amusing in that it has a Catholic arguing with himself and two (presumed) atheists bickering over the True Nature of God^tm.

[King DZA]

On the subject of evil:

I still haven't gotten around to reading the Bible, so feel free to correct me, but I really don't see why God would view the evils of the world in the same way the people on the world would. From the perspective of an all-powerful deity, I'd go so far as to say that the most horrific and terrible acts committed on Earth look like little more than petty fights and feuds between children. I mean, if you know full well that a person's soul is just going to pop up next to you in the afterlife once their worldly existence comes to an end, I highly doubt their death would be as tragic to you as it would be to the ones still inhabiting the planet.

I'd also like to think that God would be intelligent enough to realize that any significant intervention on his part is only going to encourage people to look to him to solve all their problems, instead of growing and learning to overcome the troubles they ultimately created for themselves (which is something I'm confident every good father wants for their young).

[LordBucket]

Volatile post --> people responding to volatile post with more volatile posts --> tantrum spiral

 

I see no tantrums. There was only one "volatile" post, and the author removed the volatile part. The responses to that post before it was edited have all been polite and reasonable.

[LordBucket]

On the subject of evil:

I still haven't gotten around to reading the Bible, so feel free to correct me, but I really don't see why God would view the evils of the world in the same way the people on the world would. From the perspective of an all-powerful deity, I'd go so far as to say that the most horrific and terrible acts committed on Earth look like little more than petty fights and feuds between children. I mean, if you know full well that a person's soul is just going to pop up next to you in the afterlife once their worldly existence comes to an end, I highly doubt their death would be as tragic to you as it would be to the ones still inhabiting the planet.

...yes, the "problem of evil" is very easy to resolve. Humans write horror stories, for example, turn them into horror movies, act in those movies, and watch them. Some people enjoy them. And yet I don't see any actors or movie-goers accusing writers or audiences of being "evil" for allowing these stories to exist. If you're an omniscient, omnipotent being who creates universes...it doesn't seem like such a stretch to think that you might make the occasional horror story among those universes. From the perspective of the character in a horror story, it probably seems pretty horrible. And a person who is raped/tortured/murdered/etc probably sees it as horrible too. But as you say...if they merely pop out after death with all their memories intact, able to resume their existence as a spirit apart from the flesh...that doesn't seem all that different from an actor who plays a role, then moves on.

But from what I gather, this sort of perspective doesn't easily fit within a conventional "Christian" religious/world view.

[Starver]

Also, this thread is amusing in that it has a Catholic arguing with himself and two (presumed) atheists bickering over the True Nature of God^tm.

And this (announced, with proper categorisation) atheist apparently got ignored, despite my fears that someone would misinterpret what I wrote.  So, either nobody misinterpreted it (yay!) and found it sensible (double-yay!) or it was just consigned to TL;DR; territory.

(Actually, I posted a smaller one, didn't I, on Pascal's Wager.  Again, saw no response, but that might have been considered off-topic by all.)


Considering the nature of the thread, I think this has done well.  And I'm comparing with other Bay12 threads, here.  It's done outstandingly well compared to various other places they might have had this very discussion...

[Leafsnail]

I think I even recall the Pope finally losing it after hearing enough about that controversy.

If by "losing it" you mean "trying to cover it up to save the Church's reputation" then yeah I guess?  I understand most rank and file members of the Catholic Church wouldn't support it but the conspiracy of silence (or worse) surrounding the scandal runs right to the very top.

From the perspective of the character in a horror story, it probably seems pretty horrible. And a person who is raped/tortured/murdered/etc probably sees it as horrible too. But as you say...if they merely pop out after death with all their memories intact, able to resume their existence as a spirit apart from the flesh...that doesn't seem all that different from an actor who plays a role, then moves on.

Actors don't literally become their character, this analogy does not work.

[GlyphGryph]

A better analogy would be a video game - if our bodies are truly nothing more than vessels for our souls, if life is transient while existence is eternal, then there's a bit of a change in perspective.

Our moral choices become the only ones that truly matters - the world and environment are as they are, and would we truly call a game designer evil for creating situations where we can "lose" to terrible creatures that would do horrible things to us?

Of course not - such situations must exist in order for us to truly shine and overcome and derive any benefit from our time with his creation.

And of other players, other moral actors? One can say another player is a "dick" for their actions, but one would be hard pressed to actually call them evil, no matter what they do. And most people would accept that the sort of limitations that would prevent their behaviour aren't worth the cost - better, instead, to simply identify such situations and disallow them from playing again in the future. Any punishment would likely be outside the course of the game - who knows, perhaps it will all be turned towards greater narrative benefit in the end?

The question might not be "Why does god allow evil to exist?" so much as "Does evil exist in a world that operates under these rules?"

(And a game mod is can be omnibenevolent (wants players to have the best game possible) and omnipotent (can tweak variables at will) and omniscient (can look anywhere in the game at anytime and see what's going on, and go through the logs at will) within the game and players could STILL be dicks to each other if his policy is to allow "free will" and only deal with issues that have actually happened)

[scriver]

It still fails as analogy as game character feel no pain and experience nothing. Unless, to keep this in game territory, you (as in an super-defining you, not you personally) are going all Mankar Camoran on our asses.

[GlyphGryph]

Can they, though? Does their HP not deplete? Does their body not generate blood?

We, the player, obviously experience no pain or anything of the sort - but neither, I imagine, would a soul.

What IS pain? It's a signal, nothing more - a flash of red, perhaps a direction, indicating "problem here needs to be addressed".

How is our pain qualitatively different from a lowered hp count or a dwarve's injury screen?

Again, perspective. A lot of what happens in our lives only matters within that same context - taken from the point of view of an outsider observer, is it "evil" to give a player feedback on potentially game-ending injuries and various problems?

[Starver]

(And a game mod is can be omnibenevolent (wants players to have the best game possible) and omnipotent (can tweak variables at will) and omniscient (can look anywhere in the game at anytime and see what's going on, and go through the logs at will) within the game and players could STILL be dicks to each other if his policy is to allow "free will" and only deal with issues that have actually happened)

While I wasn't really guaranteeing I'd go along wirh you on the "souls are separate from the physical" perspective, I like your game analogy and actually think that your "Game mod can be <all three>" bit works quite well, for me.  And separates the 'player' from the 'character'.

(Doesn't work with assuming the entities entirely reside in the computer, as per my Conway Game Of Life analogy, and I still think such entities reside below the level of understanding of the Crator involved.  And without that in mind, one has to wonder about whether our souls (real life personae?) have to explain themselves IRL (whatever RL there is, outside of "the game"), but within the context of the game-world, yep, I think it works.  He's certainly "omnicapable", although I'm wondering if it's worth while pointing out that a sysop can still find themselves pre-empted and out-manoeuvred by a rogue system user if they aren't massively more knowledgeable and prepared so that their combined userbase doesn't pull any fast ones.  Sorry, I am still honestly agreeing with you, but there keep being caveats coming to mind even as I put fingers to keyboard about this.)

[LordBucket]

It still fails as analogy as game character feel no pain and experience nothing.

Players playing game routinely feel anger and anguish when they do badly.

How is the experience of a human player, playing a game avatar...any different from the experience of an immortal soul, playing a human body?

Actors don't literally become their character, this analogy does not work.

It is a question of self identify. In what way do you "become" this fleshy body you're wearing right now? You're not a sack of meat. You're a conscious entity temporarily inhabiting a body.


If you, as a spiritual being, as discarnate consciousness...temporarily inhabit a meatsack and personally identify yourself with it and experience trauma based on what happens to that meatsack...how is that any different from a human being temporarily playing a game or acting out a role on stage, identifying with the character, and experiencing trauma as  result?

You've merely become so caught up in this game you call "real life" that you've forgotten that you're not this body. Just like a WoW player who gets so caught up in his raid that he refers to his in-game character as "I" and experiences rage when the game goes badly.

[scriver]

Can they, though? Does their HP not deplete? Does their body not generate blood?

We, the player, obviously experience no pain or anything of the sort - but neither, I imagine, would a soul.

What IS pain? It's a signal, nothing more - a flash of red, perhaps a direction, indicating "problem here needs to be addressed".

How is our pain qualitatively different from a lowered hp count or a dwarve's injury screen?

Again, perspective. A lot of what happens in our lives only matters within that same context - taken from the point of view of an outsider observer, is it "evil" to give a player feedback on potentially game-ending injuries and various problems?

Because it's completely different programming - not to mention that you only seem to think of minor physical pain, disregarding all other existential kinds. And yeah, of course the soul would hurt as well - it's the soul that is the psyche, the mental spark, and it gets hurt. Unless you are getting at it being a more Asian philosophy, what with every individual soul not existing any more than a shard from a shattered vase before it is mended, but we're talking Abrahamic tradition here. The soul is the psyche.

[LordBucket]

we're talking Abrahamic tradition here. The soul is the psyche.

Which is another place where this conversation breaks down. To my knowledge, unless you want to get into Kabbalah, most Abrahamic religions are extremely vague and unclear on the nature of soul. Most Protestants I've spoken to refer to a soul mostly like it's a possession, rather than any kind of consciousness or "Self."

Ask the "average Christian" what a soul is sometime. You'll probably get an answer something like "it's the part of me that goes to Heaven when I die." They're identifying with the body.

[GlyphGryph]

But is the hurt "evil" any more than the "hurt" of having your character killed in a video game? That's the important question.

We as a people accept that not all "hurt" is even bad. Forget evil!

The soul in Christian mythology should explicitly not be confused with the mind or the psyche. They are different entities entirely. The soul powers and observes and motivates the psyche, but damage to the psyche is not damage to the soul. That's actually pretty basic stuff, theisticly - there aren't any religions I can think of offhand that say soul=psyche.