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

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And who would apprentice the only supreme being in the universe?

Ah, so you too assume the god of the bible was untrained and thus made many mistakes in this world?

Coming back to the thread that yes, we could do better now given the same resources.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

No, this nonsense about God doing an apprenticeship is strictly your argument. You won't find it in any post of mine.

Not my argument - just reading your latest fan fiction and asking about your plot holes.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And who would apprentice the only supreme being in the universe?

He's trying to make sub-gods not actual gods in your fiction?

[JoeMorgue]

I have in my life completed projects without:

- Leaving the things I am charge of in the same room as the one thing I told them not to touch and blaming them when they touched it.
- Flooding the entire world and starting over.
- Screwing things up so bad I have to send my son but also my self to Earth to be tortured to absolve people of the sins that I'm the one holding them to.

So yeah... pretty sure I could do a better job.

[bruto]

It seems pretty odd and contradictory to suggest that Adam and Eve were being groomed for demigod-hood or whatever one might call it, when the one thing they were forbidden to do was to learn the difference between good and evil, the very thing that one is elsewhere told distinguishes us from the beasts. There is no evil in animal innocence: the cat that plays with its prey, the seal that eats penguins alive, the parasitic wasp that turns a spider into a zombie that is eaten from within by its larvae....no evil, just nature. But not, one presumes, the making of gods, either.

If we are to trust the biblical account, it is the snake who suggests that eating from the tree will make Adam and Eve godlike. And the account suggests that such encroachment on the divine preserve was the very thing for which they were punished.

Of course in the ambiguous and fun-filled world of religion, we are free to pick and choose what to believe and what to imagine. The gnostics pictured a layered scheme in which the faulty and imperfect world was the creation of a demiurge, and the real god was elsewhere. But if we are to assume, as the Bible seems strongly to suggest, that there is and has always been only one God, the fact that attempts by humans to get too close such as the stories of Eden and Babel are met with rather drastic reactions makes sense, but doesn't do so well as evidence of apprenticeship.

We can go on and on and round and round about what constitutes what, and whether expulsions, floods, pillars of salt and blasted towers are consistent with free will, but it seems safe to say that if the intention was to make gods of men, the procedure was confusing and not notably efficient.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, that brings us back to the other point: if God obviously can learn that job, not only without apprenticeship, but without even doing that job at all until Genesis 1, that is to say he needed ZERO job experience too, and also without needing to ask anyone or read a manual or anything... why does anyone else need an apprenticeship? Just as some hazing ritual?

I mean, it seems to me like even having someone to ask who's done that job before (you know, God) would already be more info than he had. He did just fine without even asking anyone, much less apprenticeship. Why the assumption than anyone else needs an apprenticeship, then?

I'm sure the rest of us, if we managed to do X just fine on the first try and without needing any info, we'd assume almost any other person would also do just fine. We'd throw in a "just ask if you run into problems" to be on the safe side, not assume that you need to kick that guy in the nuts and blame some BS on him to get him to do an apprenticeship first.

This is ridiculous beyond words. You would have us believe that a God who has existed eternally is no different to a god that was created and thus has an origin.

It's like saying that Alexander Graham Bell had to do an apprenticeship on telephony before he could invent the telephone or that a telephone technician needs no training because Alexander Graham Bell didn't do an apprenticeship.

[JoeMorgue]

Alexander Graham Bell isn't omnipotent.

You can't make excuses for God that aren't stupid.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Alexander Graham Bell isn't omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent then why does he need an apprenticeship?

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know. God doesn't exist so there's a limit to how much I can explain him.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is ridiculous beyond words. You would have us believe that a God who has existed eternally is no different to a god that was created and thus has an origin.

It's like saying that Alexander Graham Bell had to do an apprenticeship on telephony before he could invent the telephone or that a telephone technician needs no training because Alexander Graham Bell didn't do an apprenticeship.

Existing eternally doesn't mean never created. It just means existing independently of the time we experience.

If God exists outside time, a newly trained God could simply create a different continuum, a different block of space and time, to exist outside of. All Gods would then be eternal relative to the mere mortal beings within those universes.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If God is omnipotent then why does he need an apprenticeship?

If God is omnipotent then why does he need to create gods that need an apprenticeship?

[JoeMorgue]

If God is omnipotent why... like anything?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is ridiculous beyond words. You would have us believe that a God who has existed eternally is no different to a god that was created and thus has an origin.

NOT doing a job for all eternity still isn't going to get you any job experience. I mean, it's like expecting mom to be good at Japanese after all these decades. Turns out, though, that no matter how many decades you spend NOT learning Japanese, it won't actually increase your skills.

Originally Posted by psionl0

It's like saying that Alexander Graham Bell had to do an apprenticeship on telephony before he could invent the telephone or that a telephone technician needs no training because Alexander Graham Bell didn't do an apprenticeship.

No, this handwaving is what's ridiculous beyond words.

First of all, Alexander Graham Bell didn't just pull that invention out of his ass. He had college education for a start, AND studied the work of others that came before him. Not the least being the already existing telegraph. In fact, for most of his life he pretty much just talked about it as a phono-telegraph or such. But also by works such as that of Hermann von Helmholtz, which had already shown that some sounds (namely vowels) can be reproduced by electrical means. And the cooperation with Thomas A. Watson, which pushed him on the right track. And then there's the work of Elisha Gray, and that whole controversy.

That's NOT something pulled out of the ass in a day, with zero education, prior knowledge, or experience, like God supposedly did.

Second, a telephony apprenticeship doesn't even cover the same domain. They don't prepare a few thousands of Alexander Graham Bell.

Third, they also only have to do with the domain having changed a lot in the time since then. If we're talking at the level of what was being hired at the time of Alexander Graham Bell, then we're talking switchboard operators and you'll find that there wasn't a whole lot of knowledge or apprenticeship required.

Emma Nutt (the world's first female telephone switchboard operator) was pretty much just hired because her husband was already working in the field, she had a soothing voice, and the company was phasing out males because they tended to cuss at customers. Which males tended to be mostly just about the cheapest teenagers they could find, which also explains their behaviour. But seriously, they didn't even give them some schooling in how to interact with clients.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

NOT doing a job for all eternity still isn't going to get you any job experience. I mean, it's like expecting mom to be good at Japanese after all these decades. Turns out, though, that no matter how many decades you spend NOT learning Japanese, it won't actually increase your skills.



No, this handwaving is what's ridiculous beyond words.

First of all, Alexander Graham Bell didn't just pull that invention out of his ass. He had college education for a start, AND studied the work of others that came before him. Not the least being the already existing telegraph. In fact, for most of his life he pretty much just talked about it as a phono-telegraph or such. But also by works such as that of Hermann von Helmholtz, which had already shown that some sounds (namely vowels) can be reproduced by electrical means. And the cooperation with Thomas A. Watson, which pushed him on the right track. And then there's the work of Elisha Gray, and that whole controversy.

That's NOT something pulled out of the ass in a day, with zero education, prior knowledge, or experience, like God supposedly did.

Second, a telephony apprenticeship doesn't even cover the same domain. They don't prepare a few thousands of Alexander Graham Bell.

Third, they also only have to do with the domain having changed a lot in the time since then. If we're talking at the level of what was being hired at the time of Alexander Graham Bell, then we're talking switchboard operators and you'll find that there wasn't a whole lot of knowledge or apprenticeship required.

Emma Nutt (the world's first female telephone switchboard operator) was pretty much just hired because her husband was already working in the field, she had a soothing voice, and the company was phasing out males because they tended to cuss at customers. Which males tended to be mostly just about the cheapest teenagers they could find, which also explains their behaviour. But seriously, they didn't even give them some schooling in how to interact with clients.

I think you're mistaking known reality for what is under discussion here. Not saying it's probable or even possible, but what is under discussion here is God almighty, who is presumed to know everything about everything and to be all that needs to be, and whose creations are by their very definition ultimate, and set the standard by which all that follows is judged. A proper god does not need experience.

If you're going to imagine a god, that god is going to be a god, not some bloke learning how to drive a forklift.

Of course one's arguments on this might be useful in considering the question of whether a god does, or can, exist in the first place. But if you stipulate that what we usually call God does exist, then argument is futile. The game is fixed. Whatever objection you can come up with, infinite wisdom tops it. Supreme is supreme.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

NOT doing a job for all eternity still isn't going to get you any job experience. I mean, it's like expecting mom to be good at Japanese after all these decades. Turns out, though, that no matter how many decades you spend NOT learning Japanese, it won't actually increase your skills.

This is just pure made-up BS.

There is no indication that God did nothing for all of eternity then created a universe. There is no indication that God was created or that God was first a human and needed to undergo an apprenticeship before qualifying as a God.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't know. God doesn't exist so there's a limit to how much I can explain him.

That figures. When your argument fails, fall back on "God doesn't exist".

[Steve]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is just pure made-up BS.

There is no indication that God did nothing for all of eternity then created a universe. There is no indication that God was created or that God was first a human and needed to undergo an apprenticeship before qualifying as a God.

Exactly.

There is no indication that any god ever did anything. Everything to do with gods is made-up BS. Your made-up BS is no better, or different, than anyone else's.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That figures. When your argument fails, fall back on "God doesn't exist".

Yeah, falling back on reality is really lazy.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Resume

Yeah, falling back on reality is really lazy.

There is a premise in the OP that has been deemed unchallengeable by that poster:

Originally Posted by psionl0

But assuming that God made the world the way it is today,

You are required to accept that premise in order to be allowed to participate in this game. Reality has no place here.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is just pure made-up BS.

There is no indication that God did nothing for all of eternity then created a universe. There is no indication that God was created or that God was first a human and needed to undergo an apprenticeship before qualifying as a God.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "anything." What constituted anything when there was nothing? But of course the whole idea of what constitutes anything, or being, or existence, is problematic when speaking of an immaterial god who makes up all the rules.

And of course if God is God, he could create something and uncreate it, trying out ideas and abandoning them either out of disappointment or perhaps because for him a story has an end, and we'd never know. This universe could be the latest of dozens, even billions, of versions tried and discarded, and we'd never know. God is under no obligation to tell us about anything. But at the same time, if God is God, then there's no reason he couldn't do it just once, having had an eternity to think about how to do it, and the divinity to know everything about everything.

The dice are loaded. Whatever you might say about likelihood or how you feel something ought to be, if you presume there is a god, anything is possible, and "God decided otherwise" counters all objections.

I think for an atheist to say "I don't believe there is a god" is perfectly reasonable, as it is for a theist to speculate on what his god does; but for either to say what God could or couldn't do or be is nonsense. Nobody tells God what to be or how to be.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Steve

You are required to accept that premise in order to be allowed to participate in this game. Reality has no place here.

So many people say God (if he exists) did a lousy job. If there is no god then there is nothing to discuss.

Is a hypothetical discussion really that difficult?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So many people say God (if he exists) did a lousy job. If there is no god then there is nothing to discuss.

Is a hypothetical discussion really that difficult?

I do not believe that "so many people" say anything of the sort. Some few people who do not believe in gods may say this rather facetiously. Very, very few believers would criticize their chosen god in this manner.

A hypothetical discussion about a god necessarily requires arbitrary restrictions to be placed on a supposedly omnipotent entity's abilities. That makes any discussion somewhat difficult, but mostly just pointless and futile.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Steve

I do not believe that "so many people" say anything of the sort. Some few people who do not believe in gods may say this rather facetiously.

They do in this forum. They may be doing a reductio ad absurdum type argument but otherwise, they are not being facetious.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They do in this forum. They may be doing a reductio ad absurdum type argument but otherwise, they are not being facetious.

Few people on this forum believe in gods. If people here say such a thing they are not making a serious argument regardless of how you would like it to become one.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That figures. When your argument fails, fall back on "God doesn't exist".

Better that than parroting other people's apologetics and screeching when someone dares call me a theist.

And as noted as far as insults go "Oh you just fall back on reality in arguments" needs some work.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Better that than parroting other people's apologetics and screeching when someone dares call me a theist.

And as noted as far as insults go "Oh you just fall back on reality in arguments" needs some work.

You seem to be quite happy to engage in a hypothetical when you think you have a winning argument. Otherwise, you suddenly revert to "there is no god" and attack anybody who doesn't parrot your POV.

I don't care if you call me a "theist". You have lost credibility.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You seem to be quite happy to engage in a hypothetical when you think you have a winning argument. Otherwise, you suddenly revert to "there is no god" and attack anybody who doesn't parrot your POV.

I don't care if you call me a "theist". You have lost credibility.

Oh no I have no credibility. Whatever will the giant invisible sky wizard that doesn't exist think of me know.

There's a difference between a hypothetical and your game of "I believe this, but I have no evidence for it, so I'm going to pretend it's all just a hypothetical" game.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh no I have no credibility. Whatever will the giant invisible sky wizard that doesn't exist think of me know.

There's a difference between a hypothetical and your game of "I believe this, but I have no evidence for it, so I'm going to pretend it's all just a hypothetical" game.

Exactly. And the rest of your post proves it.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Exactly. And the rest of your post proves it.

As always, your boos mean nothing to me. I've seen what makes you cheer.

The opinions of my intellectual standards from someone who believes in God means literally nothing to me.

[Lithrael]

We can explore this ‘train or test etc’ hypothetical a bit though. Why is training or testing necessary? Can a god not just create the being in its intended ultimate state? If not why not? If so why bother with the training? If it’s this ‘free will is the secret ingredient’ thing then I’m still in the dark as far as how exactly this much free will is the correct amount. As has been pointed out, ‘free’ will is certainly constrained by our biology and the reality we live in.

[Darat]

I was thinking (yeah low hanging fruit) - god created the world with smallpox in it, we got rid of smallpox, so that's one up for us against god's work.

[JoeMorgue]

And that's sort the intellectual black hole that the god botheres have to pretend not to notice and think they are better than us for pretending to not notice.

Any problem God solves is a problem he created.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

We can explore this ‘train or test etc’ hypothetical a bit though. Why is training or testing necessary? Can a god not just create the being in its intended ultimate state? If not why not? If so why bother with the training? If it’s this ‘free will is the secret ingredient’ thing then I’m still in the dark as far as how exactly this much free will is the correct amount. As has been pointed out, ‘free’ will is certainly constrained by our biology and the reality we live in.

The problem I see with psionl0 idea - i.e. suffering etc. part of the apprenticeship to become a god is that it seems to be introducing different power levels for gods. There is the big GOD - the eternal one, the big dude who formed the earth and heavens - and then these new gods that obviously can't be eternal, and equally obviously can't have formed the earth and heavens, can't be all powerful and so on. So why even call these newbies gods? I think it will cause unnecessary confusion for readers of psionl0's fiction. I would suggest trying a different label - perhaps "Scion" - a tad overused in fantasy but I've always liked it, it has a nice ring to it.

[JoeMorgue]

The difference between monotheism and polytheism is much more about semantics and marketing then anything else.

Christianity is monotheistic but you've got the weirdness of the trinity, Mary being a Goddess figure in all but name, the Saints performing miracles...

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Darat

I was thinking (yeah low hanging fruit) - god created the world with smallpox in it, we got rid of smallpox, so that's one up for us against god's work.

Or God wanted to give us something to feel good about, so thank you lord. Or God had another plan which we, mere humans, aren't privy to.

If you believe in God there's never a winning argument, and "better" depends on better for whom? We look at things selfishly, but, apart from the Bible, which we wrote, there's nothing to suggest that God isn't the God of everything all at once. If you're a krill, the extinction of whales isn't so bad. If you're a raven with a taste for eyeballs, a battlefield is a yummy dessert. A proper god must be the god not only of people but of everything from condors to coronaviruses.

You can always make an argument for the world as a whole and the future as a goal. You don't even have to get specific. It's all assumption anyway, so assume away.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Almost every thread in this section is about the biblical God. Why should I choose a hypothetical that nobody else is interested in?

Because the biblical God doesn't work in your hypothetical. The Bible is provably wrong. If God were training new gods, believing in the Bible would immediatelly disqualify you. In fact, being part of any kind of religion would disqualify you, as they are all provably wrong.

We are then left with the unfortunate circumstance of God having failed to leave any instructions as to how to please him. What are we to do?

[JoeMorgue]

Also because in literally every single discussion about God the we never get to actually discuss any God that anyone actually believes in and are only allowed to discuss a the apologists God that built entirely of special pleadings so why should this thread be any different?

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by Darat

I was thinking (yeah low hanging fruit) - god created the world with smallpox in it, we got rid of smallpox, so that's one up for us against god's work.

Yes, except that some believe that diseases only exist because of Adam and Eve's original sin. So smallpox is our fault and not God's. It's not clear to me whether this is supposed to be a punishment, God actually cursing humans along with all other creatures with disease, or is in some metaphysical way a consequence of having sinned and not a direct action by God. If it's actually a punishment then we are sinning even more by avoiding disease and doctors will be destined for the ninth circle of hell.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

Yes, except that some believe that diseases only exist because of Adam and Eve's original sin. So smallpox is our fault and not God's. It's not clear to me whether this is supposed to be a punishment, God actually cursing humans along with all other creatures with disease, or is in some metaphysical way a consequence of having sinned and not a direct action by God. If it's actually a punishment then we are sinning even more by avoiding disease and doctors will be destined for the ninth circle of hell.

Yeah but that's insane. Why did God make Adam and Eve capable of screwing up?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but that's insane. Why did God make Adam and Eve capable of screwing up?

To give the believers a plethora of arguments, evasions, and excuses.