Could we do a better job with the world than God did?

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Some people find the tree outrageous but only because they assume that Adam and Eve had no intelligence whatsoever.

They sure do not act as if they have much intelligence. They didn’t understand the concepts of clothing or nakedness at first and then when they did know they believed it was a good idea to make and wear clothes in a situation where it was totally inappropriate. Give the whole situation it would have been more intelligent for them to intentionally become the first nudists.

[Olmstead]

What is this nonsense? Bible fanfiction? God was training a gaggle of gods? Have I been transported into an anime?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

They sure do not act as if they have much intelligence. They didn’t understand the concepts of clothing or nakedness at first and then when they did know they believed it was a good idea to make and wear clothes in a situation where it was totally inappropriate. Give the whole situation it would have been more intelligent for them to intentionally become the first nudists.

Besides which, although they may have been given intelligence by God, they got it wrong. So God gave them imperfect intelligence. QED, it's His fault.

Much too easy.

[Darat]

Haven't we already done a better job than God did? We can fix many of his mistakes, diseases for example.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

They sure do not act as if they have much intelligence. They didn’t understand the concepts of clothing or nakedness at first and then when they did know they believed it was a good idea to make and wear clothes in a situation where it was totally inappropriate. Give the whole situation it would have been more intelligent for them to intentionally become the first nudists.

It's a strange one - when you consider it he made them unable to know right from wrong, it wasn't just ignorance, he then got angry when they weren't able to know the difference. Bad workman blames his tools.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Haven't we already done a better job than God did? We can fix many of his mistakes, diseases for example.

I don't consider disease to be a "mistake".

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

What is this nonsense? Bible fanfiction? God was training a gaggle of gods? Have I been transported into an anime?

I wish. Most anime tends to come up with better plots than the average apologetics. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're Oscar worthy, but at the very least not as bad.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

You think that cancer is an example of an appropriate solution to eternal life?

A benevolent God would come up with a less horrific way of accomplishing that. How about if we all just die in our sleep on our 100th birthday if we live that long?

[HansMustermann]

120'th. "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6:3)

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider disease to be a "mistake".

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

So if you get cancer you'll naturally be refusing all but palliative treatment. And if a means to preemptively prevent cancer comes along in your lifetime you'll be bravely and honorably refusing it.

How about if you get appendicitis? Surely having it burst and dying an agonizing death from sepsis must be engineered obsolescence.

How about smallpox? I mean aside from all those native Americans who had it coming for building societies on land that white people with guns wanted. They had it coming, right? But what about the dramatic reduction in child mortality brought about by vaccines? Is that just messing with God's perfect plan?

As usual, you're so eager to get attention you don't really think about what you've read, or consider your responses beyond their anticipated shock value. Darat didn't say anything about immortality, did he? It's not like the choices are limited to either dying of cancer or immortality. Even just improving the quality and duration of a life is a step up from the imaginary god's design that involves so much suffering.

I'll bet you haven't gone your whole life without medical treatment of any kind. And moreover, you've benefited from that fact that the vast majority of people around you have been vaccinated against a wide range of diseases that used to kill people in great numbers. This makes your above statement hypocritical.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by psionl0

No, it says that you should not worship other gods.

There are biblical references that make it quite clear that God wasn't just creating human bots. For example, Psalm 85:6 says, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Jesus actually quotes this verse in John 10:34.

Which still doesn't mean that humans will rule the universe with god.
Nor have you answered my point about Islam, or my point about death.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider disease to be a "mistake".

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

1. "Engineered" how? By a god?
2. Does this mean you oppose the treatment of diseases?
3. "On this planet". Now we have the means to escape this planet, your point would seem not to apply any more.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

1. "Engineered" how? By a god?
2. Does this mean you oppose the treatment of diseases?
3. "On this planet". Now we have the means to escape this planet, your point would seem not to apply any more.

"God" is generally a religious term. I think in terms of an external intelligence.

I don't oppose treatment of disease. I just don't think that its existence implies a "mistake", as Darat suggested.

We are not in a technical position, not even nearly, to deal with a tremendous increase in life expectancy as I described.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

So if you get cancer you'll naturally be refusing all but palliative treatment. And if a means to preemptively prevent cancer comes along in your lifetime you'll be bravely and honorably refusing it.

How about if you get appendicitis? Surely having it burst and dying an agonizing death from sepsis must be engineered obsolescence.

How about smallpox? I mean aside from all those native Americans who had it coming for building societies on land that white people with guns wanted. They had it coming, right? But what about the dramatic reduction in child mortality brought about by vaccines? Is that just messing with God's perfect plan?

As usual, you're so eager to get attention you don't really think about what you've read, or consider your responses beyond their anticipated shock value. Darat didn't say anything about immortality, did he? It's not like the choices are limited to either dying of cancer or immortality. Even just improving the quality and duration of a life is a step up from the imaginary god's design that involves so much suffering.

I'll bet you haven't gone your whole life without medical treatment of any kind. And moreover, you've benefited from that fact that the vast majority of people around you have been vaccinated against a wide range of diseases that used to kill people in great numbers. This makes your above statement hypocritical.

Life desires to cling to life, naturally...whether it is ideal for the ecosystem, or not. I am not sure of your point.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

"God" is generally a religious term. I think in terms of an external intelligence.

I don't oppose treatment of disease. I just don't think that its existence implies a "mistake", as Darat suggested.

We are not in a technical position, not even nearly, to deal with a tremendous increase in life expectancy as I described.

You are simply doing the "problem of evil" from one of the alternate paths.

[JoeMorgue]

The whole B.S. idea that we have to die to "give life meaning" or that society will be forever stagnant without generations dying off have never sat well with me.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The whole B.S. idea that we have to die to "give life meaning" or that society will be forever stagnant without generations dying off have never sat well with me.

Nor with a popular god character - Noah was 950, Methuselah 969.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

You are simply doing the "problem of evil" from one of the alternate paths.

I don't believe that reconciles with my post, but whatever.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Life desires to cling to life, naturally...whether it is ideal for the ecosystem, or not. I am not sure of your point.

"Ideal for the ecosystem" is a tricky concept. Ideal on what scale?

I know people who think we evolved because the biosphere wants its fossil carbon back in circulation. Even if that's animistic nonsense, it illustrates the difficulty of weighing such things. What's another extinction event, on a planetary scale?

The reason there's a forest instead of an even coating of algae covering the ground isn't efficiency. The algae would be more efficient. The reason is competition, struggle, and death. A certain amount of acceptance on the participants' part is called for.

But, understanding on that level kind of makes the "better than God..." question moot.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You don't even know if they had belly buttons but you know all about their cognitive development?

You don't know how long Adam had to wait until he got a mate nor what he learned during that time. You also don't know how long Eve was around until the serpent appeared.

You are just making worst case assumptions.

Even the best case scenario, which would presume that they had had a long adulthood before chomping on that fruit, even taking with no grains of salt the Biblical suggestion that people once lived for hundreds of years, it must be a given that Adam and Eve had no cultural experience, no traditions, no literature, no handed-down wisdom, no life lessons from the mistakes of others, etc. Even if they had lots of time to attain the maximum cognitive development they were capable of, if the account of paradise is even marginally accurate, then rich and wonderful though it may have been, it was culturally pretty barren.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider disease to be a "mistake".

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

Well good. Because in reality there is no god to make such a "mistake".

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Warp12

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

That's like saying that treating the gal downstairs better is a model that doesn't work for someone locked up in a basement.

We're talking an infinitely powerful God who made a whole universe, just the visible part alone being over 90 billion light years in diameter, just because he wanted pretty lights in the sky at night. Did it all in less than a day too. (Genesis 1:16-17.)

It doesn't sound to me like he'd be constrained by whatever this planet happens to be like. I mean, if nothing else, he can move half the population to another world every millennium or so.

Originally Posted by Warp12

We are not in a technical position, not even nearly, to deal with a tremendous increase in life expectancy as I described.

So, is there going to be cancer in heavens too? 'Cause if there is, then I'd rather not go there just to have another chance to get cancer.

And if not, then it seems to me like God already figured out how to "deal with a tremendous increase in life expectancy." An infinite one, even.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Which still doesn't mean that humans will rule the universe with god.

Revelation 20:6.

I know it is not common for churches to teach that we can become gods. But the bible is littered with such references. For example, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord". Matthew 10:24-25

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Nor have you answered my point about Islam

Islam is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

or my point about death.

Death came into the world because the fruit was eaten. Maybe God isn't doing anything about it fast enough for you but according to the bible, God will eradicate it.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider disease to be a "mistake".

For example, I consider cancer to be engineered obsolescence. I don't think that infinite life is a model that works for the better, on this planet.

That answer could be seen as a rather needlessly glib suggestion that no diseases should be treated at all. Give your kid penicillin for his scarlet fever, and go to hell for spoiling God's plan? The issue need not be a binary one of "leave disease alone or live forever." Treatment of many diseases is just a matter of a longer and better life, still within the confines of what might be thought of as inevitable, conventional mortality.

And the thread question isn't binary either, or shouldn't be. You can aim to do better without expecting to be perfect.

[Irony]

I already do a better job than God. I haven't sent even a single person to hell for the "crime" of not worshiping me. That pretty much makes me infinitely better than God.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Irony

I already do a better job than God. I haven't sent even a single person to hell for the "crime" of not worshiping me. That pretty much makes me infinitely better than God.

I think most of us are doing better than god already. We try to make positive impacts on those around us. We correct our mistakes, usually. We can admit when we are wrong. Our justice systems, when they are working right, can adapt to different situations and be lenient when it’s appropriate. Human progress is generally in a direction that improves human life.

None of this is perfect by any means, but the mere fact that our actions actually affect the world is more than we can say for any tangible action that could be attributed to a god. We may not always get it right but at least we are doing something.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Revelation 20:6.

LOLWUT?

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6)

It says "priests", not "gods", and it's a temporary arrangement before the actual end of the world. At any rate, being a member of the ruling class is not necessarily meaning you're on par with the guy at the top in any meaningful sense.

Your interpretation is so far off the mark from what that page actually says, it's almost funny.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Revelation 20:6.

"They shall be priests of God" is not the same as "they shall be gods". Also, if you're only a god for a thousand years, then you're not much of a god, right?

Originally Posted by psionl0

I know it is not common for churches to teach that we can become gods. But the bible is littered with such references. For example, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord". Matthew 10:24-25

'Not common' is a massive understatement.
However, you do have a point: it's just that I don't think you're expressing it very well. The wiki article on divinisation puts it much better.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Islam is irrelevant.

Why? Because you say so? In a discussion about creator gods, especially Abrahamic ones, it would seem to me that Islam is absolutely relevant.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Death came into the world because the fruit was eaten. Maybe God isn't doing anything about it fast enough for you but according to the bible, God will eradicate it.

Now you're just being silly. 'Not doing anything about it fast enough for me' is not only a strawman, it's the opposite of what the Bible (and you are absolutely relying on the Bible here for your justifications and rationalisations of God's actions) says. God kills people all the time, and orders us to kill people too. That is in no way 'not acting fast enough': that is undeniably being part of the problem rather than the solution.
But you knew that, of course.

[HansMustermann]

The problem is still that God made that tree. I mean, it's like putting a claymore mine in the son's room, and if he trips it, hey, it's his fault for not listening to me to mind the wire

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Why? Because you say so? In a discussion about creator gods, especially Abrahamic ones, it would seem to me that Islam is absolutely relevant.

The teachings of Mohammad are not relevant to the Garden of Eden. Nor are the teachings of Moses for that matter. In fact, Jesus doesn't even own the teachings of Moses. He is frequently saying things such as "it is written in your law . . ."

[Olmstead]

The idea of a biblical God with a plan is absolutely hilarious.

If I were tasked to write an interpretation of Yahweh, I'd make him a schizophrenic being who creates things by imagining them. That would make him both omnipotent and omniscient. The twist is that he has schizophrenia, so the characters he imagines start acting independently.

Human history becomes the story of a mental patient trying desperately to bring his mind under control, but every scheme he tries blows up in his face until he becomes a catatonic creature that cannot influence anything that happens in the world it is imagining.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Warp12

"God" is generally a religious term. I think in terms of an external intelligence.

Good for you.
Now all you have to do is provide the evidence for the existence of this "external intelligence", and for its somehow having "engineered" cancer, and we are well on our way to having a conversation worthy of a skeptics forum.

Originally Posted by Warp12

We are not in a technical position, not even nearly, to deal with a tremendous increase in life expectancy as I described.

Thus far, average life expectancy has increased, pretty much everywhere around the world. At the same time, access to clean water, healthcare, electricity and schooling has increased, and the number of people in poverty and famine has gone down.
I therefore await your evidence-based foundation for this claim, too. Let's at least pretend this is still a forum for skeptics.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by bruto

Even the best case scenario, which would presume that they had had a long adulthood before chomping on that fruit, even taking with no grains of salt the Biblical suggestion that people once lived for hundreds of years, it must be a given that Adam and Eve had no cultural experience, no traditions, no literature, no handed-down wisdom, no life lessons from the mistakes of others, etc. Even if they had lots of time to attain the maximum cognitive development they were capable of, if the account of paradise is even marginally accurate, then rich and wonderful though it may have been, it was culturally pretty barren.

It's even more damning than that. In the absence of a society and culture from which to learn how they're expected to behave, what is their only source of such information? Right: God. He's the only one who could be educating them. (Unless he hired Satan as the babysitter, I guess, but that's not in the Bible)

He doesn't even have the excuse that they learned bad behaviours from some bad kids at school, or whatnot, because there aren't any other kids in that garden.

I'm pretty sure that most people ask themselves "where did I go wrong with educating him/her?" even when they don't have such complete control over that education. Not God. He gets self-righteous and kicks them out the first time they disobey, plus adds some more long term punishments on top of that.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

...snip...


Thus far, average life expectancy has increased, pretty much everywhere around the world. At the same time, access to clean water, healthcare, electricity and schooling has increased, and the number of people in poverty and famine has gone down.
I therefore await your evidence-based foundation for this claim, too. Let's at least pretend this is still a forum for skeptics.

Still got a long way to go to get back up to Adam's 930 years!

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The teachings of Mohammad are not relevant to the Garden of Eden. Nor are the teachings of Moses for that matter. In fact, Jesus doesn't even own the teachings of Moses. He is frequently saying things such as "it is written in your law . . ."

The topic of this thread is “Could we do a better job with the world than God did?” and the first post didn’t narrow it it down to a subset of the teachings of one specific religion. In fact this is an offshoot of a thread whose first post was specificly Islamic.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's even more damning than that. In the absence of a society and culture from which to learn how they're expected to behave, what is their only source of such information? Right: God. He's the only one who could be educating them. (Unless he hired Satan as the babysitter, I guess, but that's not in the Bible)

He doesn't even have the excuse that they learned bad behaviours from some bad kids at school, or whatnot, because there aren't any other kids in that garden.

I'm pretty sure that most people ask themselves "where did I go wrong with educating him/her?" even when they don't have such complete control over that education. Not God. He gets self-righteous and kicks them out the first time they disobey, plus adds some more long term punishments on top of that.

I think it’s even worse than that, at least if we’re talking about the omniscient, omnipotent version of god. Before he even pulled the metaphorical trigger to create the universe he would have known exactly how the whole garden thing would play out and chose to pull the trigger. He would have had an infinite number of possible options for creating a universe but he chose to create the one where that happened.

I was going to say it’s like firing a gun and then claiming you have no responsibility for the outcome because the bullet is out of your control after it’s fired. That doesn’t even fly in the real world where there’s a non-zero chance the bullet does something unexpected but in the case of god he would know with 100% certainty where the bullet is going to hit.

[bruto]

Of course if you think about it this whole question has a nebulous sort of absurdity that makes it either un-answerable or a foregone conclusion, depending on how you look at things.

When Leibniz suggested that this is the best of all possible worlds, he had one idea of what constitutes possibility, based on the presumption that a world must contain what it now contains, and run on the rules it now runs on. And perhaps in that context he was correct. Maybe if you were an omniscient god able to comprehend the butterfly effect at all moments and all levels, any possible change right down to the welfare of a blade of grass would be worse down the line somewhere else. We'll never get a chance to find out.

A god that is looking after every detail of every bit of the universe can always say, with authority, that we can never understand the details, and have to trust him. Because in a sense, god or not, it's true that we cannot foresee or direct every detail of every bit of the universe, and guarantee that what we do won't change something somewhere for someone for the worse.

In a theistic world, any creator god plays with loaded dice anyway. Because he can always say "better for whom?" All that any god has to say to win the argument is "I'm God, and I got what I wanted." Or, for that matter, to remind us that "better for people" is irrelevant if you're a naked mole rat and positively contrary if you're a flesh eating microbe.

We take our Biblical account as evidence that we humans are God's chosen critters, but we would, wouldn't we? When we feed our pet snakes mice, their woeful fate is just a service for a greater good. If diseases are God's pets, a world in which disease runs rampant is perfect, just tough luck for us.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Finster

I think it’s even worse than that, at least if we’re talking about the omniscient, omnipotent version of god.

That in any case. Plus, without even knowing the future, how would you hide and do something when an omnipresent and omniscient god isn't looking, anyway? I mean, at the very least, he's right there and seeing that his kids are about to pull the pin of the nuclear hand grenade.

Me, I was just pointing out that even without getting into the exact implications of actual omniscience, God still behaves like a bellend anyway.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

That in any case. Plus, without even knowing the future, how would you hide and do something when an omnipresent and omniscient god isn't looking, anyway? I mean, at the very least, he's right there and seeing that his kids are about to pull the pin of the nuclear hand grenade.

Me, I was just pointing out that even without getting into the exact implications of actual omniscience, God still behaves like a bellend anyway.

Yeh, pretty much – the only way he’s not evil and/or incompetent is resorting to: Mysterious ways, Good and perfect by definition so everything he does is good and perfect, Puny human minds can’t fathom the grand plan, etc. (often, while simultaneously claiming to know exactly what god wants)

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Finster

Yeh, pretty much – the only way he’s not evil and/or incompetent is resorting to: Mysterious ways, Good and perfect by definition so everything he does is good and perfect, Puny human minds can’t fathom the grand plan, etc. (often, while simultaneously claiming to know exactly what god wants)

It's hard to think of a god as being either very good or very effective if he spends less attention on cancer, war, famine and extinction than he does on what you should do with your penis.