h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

?

.

Welcome to the "I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction" thread in exile.

This thread was formed as a reasult of a discussion between Jane Austin, Agnostic Primist, and Fnord Prefix. We decided that the origional God thread had degraded in quality and thaat e should start over. In order to make this one better, we added a few rules.

1.) It will be invitation only for a while. We will decide when to publish the thread address, so please don't tell anyone about this thread unless we say it's ok.

2.) By the request of Jane, toxxin is forbidden to post here. If he does, we ask that he be ignored by everyone.

3.) No discussions of paedophilia in any context. Any posting mentioning the subject should be ignored, except this one.

4.) No ad hominum arguements--they don't get you anywhere.

5.) Nothing against the House Rules.

6.) Everyone be excellent to one another.

N. 6 seems very Bill and Teddish to me.
Also, nit picking - I'm doing it here where it can be seen, AP -
N. 3 - If paedophilia comes up in a proper context and was necessary to resolve a theological point, then a) shouldn't it be allowed to be spaken aboot, and b) what are you going to do about it anyway?
N. 2 - Remember my comments about creating a self-congratulatory elite. We don't want to end up with you and Jane just banning people with whom you have interestingly stimulating and thus controversial arguments which you don't like.
N. 4 - I'm guessing that that means no personal attacks, but not knowing more than the necessary amount of Latin to seem clever, I'm unsure.
N. 5 - Well, duh!
N. 1 - Okay!

(Sorry about the order. It's a subroutine of cryptography that makes people mentally order the points, which involves them actually thinking about what I've said. I'll probably use this method on other threads from now on, too, but mainly to annoy people...)

"N. 1 - Okay!"

Oll Korrect.

"N. 2 - Remember my comments about creating a self-congratulatory elite. We don't want to end up with you and Jane just banning people with whom you have interestingly stimulating and thus controversial arguments which you don't like."

I promise not to ban myself anyone. I also agree not to support any further bans. However, I still support the Toxxin ban because we ought to to make some concession to Jane's wishes and because I agree with her and Hoovooloo that he is not worth talking to. Still, I may later suggest that we repeal the ban, if you agree.

"N. 3 - If paedophilia comes up in a proper context and was necessary to resolve a theological point, then a) shouldn't it be allowed to be spaken aboot, and b) what are you going to do about it anyway?"

I'll ignore it and hope that everyone else does. How about if I replace that rule with something about not getting into emotional cyclical arguements?

"N. 4 - I'm guessing that that means no personal attacks, but not knowing more than the necessary amount of Latin to seem clever, I'm unsure."

That's what it means, and you probably know more Latin than me.

"N. 5 - Well, duh!"

Well, that's actually from the Open Debate Society Rules. I just thought it was good to remind people.

"N. 6 seems very Bill and Teddish to me."

Yeah. I got that one from Jane. I figure I should try to agree with both of you because you both make good points, but from opposite directions. There is a middle path somewhere in there and that is what we ought to follow.

"(Sorry about the order. It's a subroutine of cryptography that makes people mentally order the points, which involves them actually thinking about what I've said. I'll probably use this method on other threads from now on, too, but mainly to annoy people...)"

I put them back in order. Hahahahahahahaha.

Overall, I would say that you are more right than me.

THE FOLLOWING RULES ARE A REPLACEMENT FOR THE ORIGIONAL RULES OF THIS CONVERSATION

When we is used in this post, it means Agnostic Primist, Fnord Prefix, and Jane Austin.

1.) It will be invitation only for a while. We will decide when to publish the thread address, so please don't tell anyone about this thread unless we say it's ok.

2a.) By the request of Jane Austin, Toxxin is forbidden to post here. If he does, we ask that he be ignored by everyone. THis amy change at some point in the future.

2b.) No persons will be banned in the future.

3.) Please avoid cyclic emotional arguements (ones where you are motivated by emotions and find yourself repeating the samae points again and again). If you find yourself in one, just pull out of it.

4.) No ad hominum arguements--they don't get you anywhere.

5.) Nothing against the House Rules.

6.) Everyone be excellent to one another.

That's pretty good now. I won't raise any issues I have with the rules now until I actually need to.
Which leaves us with the question - how to start?

In responce to "God: Fact or Fiction", I would say: "If you mean the Triple-O God, fact, but misunderstood fact.".

I believe in the Triple-O God, but I think it is rediculous to assume that it has any particular interest in humanity. Much more likely, we are merely a step on a path to a higher goal. After all, it is unreasonable to assume that we exist at the most important point in the Universe's 15 billion year history.

Rather, I believe that the Triple-O God created the universe and occasionally directed our evolution to create us in order that we might then evolve into, or create something else that is the next step on it's latter.

So, what, you're saying that the ultimate goal of the omni-omni God is to create the highest order of being? Why?
(I have had suspicious thoughts recently, that an omnipotent God would invalidate and erase the universe, and an omniscient God would change it so quickly, so infinitely, that it would be erased from that, too)

"So, what, you're saying that the ultimate goal of the omni-omni God is to create the highest order of being? Why?
(I have had suspicious thoughts recently, that an omnipotent God would invalidate and erase the universe, and an omniscient God would change it so quickly, so infinitely, that it would be erased from that, too)"

I didn't say that. I just said that its goal is something other than making us happy. It is possible that it merely created us because it found it entertaining to blow ourselves up. Or, perhaps it considers creating intyelligent species throgh evolution an art form. Or maybe we are a computer game to it.

My point is that, whatever its goal it, is it terribly arrogant for us to assume that we are the ultimate expression of that goal.

We're the ultimate expression of the goal /as far as we know/. That's the highest accolade any species can have; so that counts anyway. Besides, I don't think that anyone here is assuming that we're the ultimate expression. It's possible that we're already ultimate as far as biological evolution goes, but certainly not mentally.

"We're the ultimate expression of the goal /as far as we know/. That's the highest accolade any species can have; so that counts anyway. Besides, I don't think that anyone here is assuming that we're the ultimate expression. It's possible that we're already ultimate as far as biological evolution goes, but certainly not mentally."

If by "anyone here", you mean you and Agnostic Primist (the only other people who's posted to this thread), they you're right.

However, many theists (especially those who are Christian) do believe that we are somehow the pinaccle of creation and that God particularly wants us to be happy. They think that it will try to do what's best for us when it intervenes in the world. That is why they have so much trouble explaining "evil". Why would a Triple-O God that loves us allow evil to exist. Usually, they just use weak arguements about free will that don't fully work.

However, the Evoluytionary Theist view gives a very simple explanation for the presence of "evil". Evil exists because God's goals for humanity do not match what humans may want. From humaniities point of view, WW II was bad and it would be better if God had killed Hitler in 1920. On the other hand, it may be that God's plan required WW II, perhaps so we would make nuclear weapons, or perhaps just because it likes to watch wars or something. Thus there is evil.

Anyone who might probably post to this thread is included there.
Sometimes, I admit, I don't count some theist's views as important, or even rational. But I have no arguments witht the rest of your post. Certainly, if there is a tripleO God then we can hardly claim to resemble him in any way except (and maybe not even) consciousness, let alone be able to understand/agree with him. Therefore, using Ockham's Razor, I find it simpler to assume that he does not exist.

There is a definite problem in positing an omnibenevolent God whose idea of benevolence is markedly different from our own - namely, that we cease entirely to understand what we may be talking about. Human ideas of benevolence are rooted in human nature at some point; presumably God's idea of benevolence would be rooted in His nature at some point - but this implies that God is in some way constrained, and therefore not omnipotent.

Noggin

So the options are only either an extremely long-term God, thus agreeing with /some/ people's ideas of Benevolence (macroscopic), or a small-scale Benevolent God, who either does simple miracles like making the sun rise and creating the universe, or literally microscopic, doing good works with electrons. Or, of course, we could just skip the Bible's God entirely.

Moreover, to use a phrase I've used elsewhere, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnisciensce are not possible *observable* (or even understandable) properties of any entity, and their attribution should be regarded as normative rather than descriptive.

Noggin

"There is a definite problem in positing an omnibenevolent God whose idea of benevolence is markedly different from our own - namely, that we cease entirely to understand what we may be talking about. Human ideas of benevolence are rooted in human nature at some point; presumably God's idea of benevolence would be rooted in His nature at some point - but this implies that God is in some way constrained, and therefore not omnipotent."

Yes, if I was positing an omnibenevolent God, but I'm not. I'm positing an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God (those are the three O's, aren't they?)

Rather, I believe that this God acts in its own interests. Perhaps it just enjoys watching us kill each other for sme reason. Or maybe it sees us as a computer game. An omnibenevolent God cannot be omnipotent because it's nature (of omnibenevolence) would restrict it's actions to benevolent ones.

Evolutionary Theist posting for R. Daneel Olivaw

Hmmm; I *think* omnibenevolence is normally taken to be one of the Os; if it wasn't the problem of evil wouldn't be much of a problem, right? The notion of the cosmos as a giant computer is a predictable consequence of the role of I.T. in modern intellectual life, but if God's the programmer where are the I/O interfaces? And does being omnipresent limit God to being inside of space and time?

Noggin

"Hmmm; I *think* omnibenevolence is normally taken to be one of the Os; if it wasn't the problem of evil wouldn't be much of a problem, right?"

You may be right.

"The notion of the cosmos as a giant computer is a predictable consequence of the role of I.T. in modern intellectual life, but if God's the programmer where are the I/O interfaces? And does being omnipresent limit God to being inside of space and time?"

I think it would be unwise to take the analogy too litterally. We amy be more real than a computer game. I merely meant that God's attitude to us may be the same as our attitude to characters in a computer game. That is, we interact and interfere with them for enjoyment and don't really care that much about them. We kill them for enjoyment and without any moral qualms.

"And does being omnipresent limit God to being inside of space and time?"

No. It may be that our dimention of time is a dimention of space to it. It could then pass through ut space and time once and as a result be ompresent to us. It could then leave our space and time forever, and we could not know.