Print

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

[Neruz]

You, out!

[Starver]

If a being is truly omniscient and omnipotent and actually uses these faculties then actually creating a universe is completely redundant, identical results could be achieved with a thought experiment. Which raises the obvious questions. Are we a thought experiment? How do we view our thought experiments?

Ah, now...  This enters the realms of "Next Tuesdayism".

The common argument against Young Earth Creationists (who go "yebbut, he made the 6000 year-old Earth/universe look like it was billions of years old" when presented with evidence that would point at it not being a YECreation) is to suggest Last Tuesdayism (or Last Thursdayism, but which is the heretical viewpoint, I can't rememnet) about it the whole world being brought about Last Tuesday (or...) with everybody's memories intact.

To which I say... "Next Tuesdayism!".

For to create a (probably) self-consistent universe with a back-history, the thought experiment has to have been gone through to work out what now-long-extinct stars would have been out there, chucking out what kind of photons in what direction in order that when one goes out at night and (light pollution permitting) looks into the heavens, you see a sparkle in a particular place...  And huge tracks of photons (at the very least, more and more if you're not skimping on them and putting them down where they could be heading onwards and not happening to hit a human retina or astoronomical detector of some kind) need to be placed down leading 'from' the hypothetical original source that isn't even there at the moment.  So the universe, at both this scale and at the level of ensuring that everyone 'wakes up' with all the memories (and gut contents, and possibly the odd grazed patch of skin) that they should have had, given the apparent past that you're wanting to give them, would have had to have been simulated in the deity's mind (or PDA, if he's a bit geeky about the whole thing)...  And the thought experiment 'beings' would have to go through all the interaction-stuff to 'get it all right'.

Much as you say, in a few less words than me.

Thus, 'we' could be that thought experiment.  The universe isn't created yet.  It will be, Next Tuesday.  At which point the 'we that will be' will be created with all the detail that the 'we that currently are[n't]' show to be required.

Which is not to say that Next Tuesday is next Tuesday (i.e. tomorrow, as I (apparently) write this) but it will be the Next (and First) Tuesday that actually happens.

Simples! <makes sound of merekat>

[Neruz]

The Universe is destroyed at the end of every instant, and recreated at the start of the next one!

[Starver]

The Universe is destroyed at the end of every instant, and recreated at the start of the next one!

Though there may still be a copy of the old one in backup, or at least if we poke at the swapfile.

[Sergius]

The Universe is destroyed at the end of every instant, and recreated at the start of the next one!

Each minute the Minute Gnomes rebuild the universe. But sometimes they forget something, like a set of keys. That's why sometimes you're absolutely sure where you left your keys but they ain't there, yet, the next minute they are exactly where you looked before.

[Zwebie]

So I've been reading this thread, righ? I'd intended to read it in it's entirety before I post, but something came up around page 30 or so that I felt that I could put my two cents into. The discussion was about the quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
                                ~Epicurus

Specifically the "able, but not willing" part, and whether there were no other ways for it to be interpreted than the god being malevolent.

Were I an omnipotent being, I believe that I would put the effort into creating the universe. I would not remove evil from this universe that I create. I would create the mechanisms that would allow the universe to populate itself with sentient beings, and I would give them free will, and all that jazz. Why would I do this? Well, for a very similar reason that I read through the legends in the worlds that are created in DF: I would like to hear these people's stories. No good story is complete without struggle and strife, right?

Does this make me a malevolent being? I would like to think not, but I know that some, if not most, would consider me to be so.

Do I believe that a being such as this exists? No. I have not found evidence for any sort of afterlife, god, or supernatural being. I call myself an atheist, though I do not enjoy the term. I prefer to call myself a PEARLSist (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic Supporter... ist), a term that was (as far as I can tell) created by Thunderf00t, a popular atheist youtube video-blogger. I use the term atheist because it is more widely known than Pearlsist... But yes. Thoughts?

[Earthquake Damage]

Were I an omnipotent being, I believe that I would put the effort into creating the universe. I would not remove evil from this universe that I create. I would create the mechanisms that would allow the universe to populate itself with sentient beings, and I would give them free will, and all that jazz. Why would I do this? Well, for a very similar reason that I read through the legends in the worlds that are created in DF: I would like to hear these people's stories. No good story is complete without struggle and strife, right?

So by playing DF we're playing god.  And that's awesome. 

[Andir]

Were I an omnipotent being, I believe that I would put the effort into creating the universe. I would not remove evil from this universe that I create. I would create the mechanisms that would allow the universe to populate itself with sentient beings, and I would give them free will, and all that jazz. Why would I do this? Well, for a very similar reason that I read through the legends in the worlds that are created in DF: I would like to hear these people's stories. No good story is complete without struggle and strife, right?

So by playing DF we're playing god.  And that's awesome. 

Or damning... depending on your religion.

[Neruz]

So basically you're indirectly tormenting and killing people to sate your own curiousity?

[Zwebie]

Well, I think that an omnipotent being would not see the beings it creates as 'people'. At best, I think they'd be more like cattle to such a being. But I suppose yes, in that case, I would be indirectly tormenting people to sate my own curiosity.

[Neruz]

And that's not at least a little malevolant?

I know if i found somone who was creating entire planets of cows just to watch them and see what happened, i'd find that pretty irresposible, repulsive and yes, malignant, especially if he just left them to suffer merely to sate his own curiousity.

[RAM]

If you create limited food, and unlimited people, and don't consider the implications, then you are ignorant. If you do consider the implications, and do it anyway, then from their perspective you are malevolent, but they are only imaginary so it is silly to worry about their feelings, just as it would be silly for them to worry about you. Which would be silly because imaginary people can't worry about stuff...

[Neruz]

If you create limited food, and unlimited people, and don't consider the implications, then you are ignorant. If you do consider the implications, and do it anyway, then from their perspective you are malevolent, but they are only imaginary so it is silly to worry about their feelings, just as it would be silly for them to worry about you. Which would be silly because imaginary people can't worry about stuff...

Unless they can...

[Andir]

And that's not at least a little malevolant?

I know if i found somone who was creating entire planets of cows just to watch them and see what happened, i'd find that pretty irresposible, repulsive and yes, malignant, especially if he just left them to suffer merely to sate his own curiousity.

Not even cows... cows can't realistically eat each other because they don't have canines and incisors for teeth.  If anything, this "God" placed a bunch of possible cannibals in pit and it taking bets on which group will eat the others.

[Zwebie]

I have never really thought about this particular subject much. I was more trying to say that I could, on a hypothetical level, relate to a god that created life with the ability but not the will to get rid of evil. This is much in the way that one could relate to the Jigsaw killer in Saw. In reality, if I were omnipotent and omnicient, I would know much, much more than I do now, and my views would undoubtedly change.

(Edited for clarity)