Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Deggial: Why should this be an issue? How does the robot express his appreciation? By praying/worshiping? If I created a robot race that I wanted to live independent (and I would), why would I desire their appreciation? Am I so vain that I need to create robots that constantly thanks me for everything?

I’m noticing that I said some things in the robot analogy with which I wouldn’t entirely agree. Guess that’s what happens when you write “stream of consciousness”-style.

Just because you would want your creation to live independently doesn’t mean the god of the universe. It doesn’t sound like you would love or care for your creation. The god I believe in does love its creation. God didn’t create humans so that they would “constantly thank” him for everything. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Quote:

This seems very oppressive to me. You make up rules for living beings (different from you) to live by. And if they don't, you torture them. You don't try to fix them. Apperantly too proud of your own rules to let any "lesser being" question them.

This is just grossly inaccurate. You want a God that makes robots without free wills, or at least the freedom to committ immoral acts. How do you “fix them” without allowing for the possibility of evil AND still allow them to retain their freedom? It’s not possible…

Hell doesn’t exist to torture people. God does try to “fix” people, but he doesn’t coerce them. You want “God the cosmic rapist” who leaves people no choice but to believe in him, not a god who respects your freedom. Why should a “lesser being” question a being who is omniscient and omnipotent? That makes no sense. If you knew everything and could do anything within your nature, then why would you take advice from one of your creations? That would be like asking your cat for tax advice.

Quote:

Bigotry running high. Do all atheists preach to people how to live their lives?

Hello? Can you hear me? I think we have a bad connection… I never said anything about preaching to others. The analogy said that atheists know better than god how to live their own lives. Here’s my exact words:

“What about the robots who don’t even think I exist? They live their lives thinking they know the best way to live as a robot.”

There is nothing to indicate I was talking about preaching to others. Don’t be so quick to play the bigotry card. It’s unbecoming to freethinkers.

Quote:

Then you are not an intelligent creator. If you favor one robot for following your rules simply because their yours, then you obviously dispise your creation's independent thinking abilities. Then you do want a robot that simply follows directions. This is not what I would do as a creator.

And what would you do as a creator? Create them and let them all do whatever they want without caring about their well-being? Or create them in such a way that doesn’t allow them to possess a free will? Or…?

Quote:

Comparing your example with god, the atheist and hell. According to your belief (apperantly), I should scream "look at me!!!!", then grab a hammer and start beating people to death until I have got everyone's attention. And this doesn't even begin to reach the level of tortures in hell (according to many christians). Sounds more like psycotic behavour to me. Personally, I wouldn't care if someone was ignoring me.

You’re trying to tell us that you wouldn’t care if someone you deeply loved was completely ignoring you and acting as if you didn’t even exist. And you expect us to believe you??? No sane human thinks that way… Are you being serious?

Quote:

I haven't heard this description of hell before. What about the lake of fire, and all the pain and suffering in the bible? From your definition of hell, I can't wait to go there.

There will be pain and suffering. It won’t be done by god, though. It will be everyone for themselves. We’ll actually get to see “survival of the fittest” in action. I hope you don’t go there, but let me know how it goes if you do.

Quote:

So you are saying that all governments on earth are controlled by god? That humans are incapable of creating, or living in a society? That all people, deep inside are hatefull and malevolent, and should be oppressed? Are you living inside a bouble?

Humans are definitely capable of creating and living in a society. However, every human society has had evil. I never said “all people” are hateful or malevolent. Where’d you get that idea? I’m failing to see your point here.

Theli

Polycarp...

Don't I know it? There's alot of posts made by me that I don't really agree with either.
Anyway... moving on.

I thought the purpose of the robotexample was to envision yourself as a god (creator of living creatures) and then compare your actions with the one's supposedly done by the christian god.

I'm not sure I would love it, but I would however respect it.

I've never heard of such a god, wich one do you believe in?

That depends on what you mean by "immoral". If you mean acting independent of my bidding, then no.
If you mean robots with a tendency for killing eachother, then yes.
If I created beings that would find joy in killing eachother, then it would seem strange to me to punish them for it.
Even by making them feel pain and loss. What would I gain from that?

I think you are taking this free will abit black and white. Good and evil. Does every crossroad in life have one good choice and one evil choice? No, I don't think so.
Here's an example. When I put on my socks this morning I had 2 choices.
1. First put on the left sock, then the right.
2. First put on the right sock, then the left.
Now, wich one of these 2 choices is the evil one, and wich is the good one?
If I couldn't act "evil", would I not have a choice concerning the socks?
I don't think, that by making humans nicer to each other, it would take away their freedom of choice.

What purpose does hell have?
As I've understood it, hell is eternal. So even if you would repent your sins (probably for the wrong reasons), it wouldn't matter. You will never return to make it right.

wich one created heaven/hell? Wich one wants people to pray and follow?

Personally, I would rather follow my own (possibly dumber) choices than to blindly follow someone elses. I think the mistakes that would be made following my own decitions are insignificant comparing to the loss of not following my own will.

ok, you said that, not me.
I never said that I (as a creator) would follow directions from my creation. But I would respect my creation enough to let it follow its own. Because, that's what I created it for.

I might have missinterpreted your saying.
I interpreted "...best way to live as a robot" as knowing how everyone else should live their lives.
Sorry for snapping, I had recently been posting in a topic wich was dominated by rock throwing and flaming.



eh, where did you read this?
Did you find some hidden messages between the rows in my post that I am unaware of?
If I was the creator of the robots, I would have created them in a way that they did care for each other. If I really did this then I wouldn't need to, with an ironfist teach them how to live.
If my goal was to create social conscious beings, and they would require my constant guidence in order to live in peace, then the failure is mine alone.
If they simply followed my directions (let's assume they are good for them) out of fear of me and my power, then I've failed miserably.

A robot that require constant maintainence must be considered a failure by an omnipotent creator, don't you think?

First of all, I would not fall in love with my own creation.
And secondly. If I did, I would probably be sad, but I would certainly not hurt it because it was ignoring me. I don't know how you personally define love, but that is not a part of it.

"us"?



How many personallities do you have?

Why shouldn't I be?
If someone standing in the same room as me was ignoring me, I wouldn't do anything about it. Comparing this to god and humans. If that person out of bilions of individuals weren't paying any intention to you, then so what?

What claims of yours can I draw from this?
1. Killing people with a hammer for ignoring you is sane.
or
2. Hell is a nice place.
or
3. Getting hit with a hammer is not torture.
or
4. God likes to be ignored.

In whatever form torture takes in hell, throwing a person in it must be considered an act of hate.
By justifying this act you are also justify extreme retaliation against someone who ignores you.

I doubt that you would act in such extreme ways simply for being ignored.

Discussing hell...
Why do you assume that a large amount of people can form, and live in a society on earth, but is incapable of doing so in hell unless the actual place (hell) is so hostile that it's impossible.
In wich the pain and suffering isn't really caused by humans, but rather by the creator of hell (god).

Here's a quote from your post...

"That’s what hell will be. everyone doing what they want without god anywhere to be found. No justice for wrongs committed, fighting for our own rights without regard for those of another, ahhh it will be such a wonderful place."

I've marked the interesting parts. It all starts with "everyone".
Everyone = all people, don't you agree?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Deggial: If my goal was to create social conscious beings, and they would require my constant guidence in order to live in peace, then the failure is mine alone. If they simply followed my directions (let's assume they are good for them) out of fear of me and my power, then I've failed miserably. A robot that require constant maintainence must be considered a failure by an omnipotent creator, don't you think?

This has been a fun conversation, but we've drifted far from the original topic. The bottom line is that you think it's possible to create beings that are totally free, yet do not have the capability to use their freedom to commit evil acts. I don't see how that is possible. If a being is 100% free, then they can do evil. Any being incapable of evil is less than 100% free.

In terms of hell, you think it's unjust. I don't. You think its purpose is to torture people. I think its purpose is to give its inhabitants what they want - a world without god.

I don't know how fruitful further discussion will be, but I'm willing to pursue it if you feel there is good reason.

Ted Hoffman

Polycarp
In other words, you only believe in things that have already happened at least once before.
The keyword is naturalistic plausibility. Testability and falsifiability come immediately after.

The fact that something hasn’t happened in the past, does not mean it won’t happen in the future. Surely you know this.

In the past women could not get pregnant without some sperm fertilizing some ova. In the future, it will remain the same.
In the past, people who died stayed dead. In the future, dead people will stay dead.

I simply said that it is not extraordinary to claim something that is believed by 80-90% of the people

This is a quibble. Whether the claim is extraordinary or not is irrelevant. Whats important is whether the claim is factual or otherwise.

My point was that many of the skeptics here would not have believed in the existence of kangaroos had they lived in 17th century Europe.

With good reason. If something sounds incoherent, why should you even believe it?

I say this based on the criteria given by many of you for justification for belief in god(s). This would be the case even if some of your fellow Europeans returned from Australia telling you that kangaroos exist.
You simply can't fault anyone for evaluating the info they receive based on the frame of reference thats available to them. Would you rather people believed what they are told even if they can not make sense out of it? But your hypothetical scenarios are immaterial given that now we are in the information age and a global village.

I’ve dialogued with Rainbow Walking. I don’t think he converted based on historical argumentation, it was more philosophically driven. I don’t post here to convert people. I enjoy discussing these topics. If someone happens to convert to Christianity, would I complain? No
You said earlier it is a waste of time arguing here. Now you say you enjoy it bla,bla,bla.
You think that RW thought in a vaccum? My point was, these discussions have had people converting, others learn more, others derive enjoyment, and so on and so forth. So saying we are wasting time because theists and atheists have closed minds is complete hokum.

What if the robot appreciated the fact that I brought it into existence? What if it was so thankful for being created that it went out and tried to improve the world and make it a better place for all of the other robots (even the ones who didn’t believe they were created, but believed they just popped into existence as a cosmic accident)?
Assuming that you provided the Robots with reliable, undoubtable evidence for: (1) your existence and (2) your being their creator, your scenario would be fine.

What do you mean "improve the world"? do you mean you could have created the robot and placed it in a world that needs improvement? Improve it on what basis, your basis, or its owns basis? would those two agree? If the robots perspective differed from yours, would you fault it? Are you saying that just because you create something you have monopoly over what is and isn't the best way for it to live?

And what if you created the robots and totally destroyed any evidence that would indicate to it that it was created, leave alone created by you, how would you feel if the robot still praised you even without evidence that you exist? wouldnt you feel there is a malfunction in it?

What if you found the robot praising something that did not even exist for creating it? What would be your thoughts on the robots behaviour?

Why would it do this? Because it loved the other robots and wanted their lives to be better. Me, as creator, knows the best way for a robot to live its life, so I tell the robot how they should live if they want robot society to be beneficial to all.

Wouldnt it be better though, to leave the robot to decide the best way to live its "life" given that you created it withe the ability to know what is right from what is wrong?

What about the robots who don’t even think I exist? They live their lives thinking they know the best way to live as a robot. I see no reason to treat them the same as the robots who acknowledged my presence. How do you treat people who act like you’re not even in the same room as them?
It depends on whether you have provided them with unfalsifiable and undoubtable evidence for your existence.
If I have not given them foolproof evidence, I would treat them with respect.

You want a creator that lets you do whatever you want and then rewards you for your behavior, even when the creator made you and knows exactly what is best for you
Why would he know what is best for me while leaving me incapable of judging what is best for me? Wouldn't it mean he created me with less intelligence than I need? Why would he provide me with little intelligence and then spoon-feed me with info on how to lead my life?

Hell isn’t for punishment. It’s to give people what they want – a life without a meddling god who interferes with all of humanity’s best laid plans. That’s what hell will be – everyone doing what they want without god anywhere to be found. No justice for wrongs committed, fighting for our own rights without regard for those of another, ahhh it will be such a wonderful place.
You wish.

God doesn’t want to be worshipped to stroke his ego. He wants to be acknowledged as the one who is responsible for our existence, and then he wants us to go out and help all the other robots who need help.
It depends on what "acknowledgement" entails. And what evidence he has provided for us to know that he indeed, is responsible for what you claim he is responsible.

I would rather be wrong with a good reason, than be right with no good reason.

You have hardly addressed half of my questions but thanks for responding to some.

Skeptical

Are you saying that you wouldn't at least be interested in talking to such a person?

I am interested in talking to anyone. But the question then would be, would such a person be interested in talking to me? About what?

Ted Hoffman

Polycarp
The incorruptible body of which Paul speaks will be the state of every believer. Why “rise” and join Jesus in the clouds? Look earlier in the passage at 1 Corinthians 15:50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (heaven?). Paul says human bodies are transformed in order to exist in the heavenly place or state. Later in verses 53-54, he talks about this transformation leading to a state of immortality (replacing a mortal body).
Human bodies are transformed to what?
What characteristics do these transformed human bodies exhibit? Do they shine in the dark?
Do they have flesh and blood? If not, then what exactly do you mean when you say "human body"?

HelenM

The Bible isn't very clear on this but some people say these bodies are like Jesus' body after his resurrection. I.e. he had one then. The Bible says he could appear in rooms when the doors were locked (but this doesn't mean his body was 'immaterial' necessarily); he could eat food; um, I can't remember what else is said about Jesus after he was resurrected, off-hand.

love
Helen

[edited for formatting]

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Helen,
I too remember him eating some sort of food. So it must have been a flesh and blood body. A body with scars and can need food is as human as it can get. He had vocal cords and could talk. His muscles were working and he could move his limbs.
That food that was eaten got digested and he probably visited a latrine before he acsended to heaven. Unless heaven has latrines, or unless the food disappeared ( or 100% digested) once he ate it.

As to whether someones face is shining or not, that depends on who you ask and their mental state at the time and the purpose they are telling the story for. Sometimes, I think the face of my beloved shines. Does that mean she gets transformed sometimes?

Ted Hoffman

Polycarp
The god I believe in does love its creation. God didn’t create humans so that they would “constantly thank” him for everything. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Why does God love humans? Because he created them? So that they can love him? Because he is lonely? Because he cant help it?

Why Polycarp? How do you expect someone who is diametrically different from you to love you? Does God need "faith" to love us? Does God see us? Does God know how we feel? Do we need faith to love God and believe he exists? Do we see God? Do we know how God feels? Does God have feelings?
Its an imbalanced relationship and can not in any way be called "love".

Does God need us? For what? Do we need God? For what?

When ones leg is broken, what is the value of Gods love in dealing with that broken leg? Does it have any practical contribution to dealing with the fracture?

When does Gods love become useful?

How does our love help God?

Why did God create men?

Why should a “lesser being” question a being who is omniscient and omnipotent? That makes no sense. If you knew everything and could do anything within your nature, then why would you take advice from one of your creations? That would be like asking your cat for tax advice.
You have created a false analogy because you did not create your cat and cats dont know anything about tax.

If God is so omniscient and omnipotent, why doesn't he create a being who is as omniscient and omnipotent like him then ask that being to love him?
Why does he create a lesser being to love him? Does he fear a challenge? Does he want a being he can manipulate easily? Or is it the case that he just cant create a being as omnipotent and omniscient like him?

Please answer this questions Polycarp.

Ted Hoffman

If u had the power to create (omnipotently) Polycarp, would you create a lesser being (if what you wanted from the being was communion/ company) or would you create a being with equal capabilities as you?

And if what you wanted was a being to worship you and fear you, would you create a lesser being or a being that is equal in potential as you?

Ted Hoffman

Polycarp,
My main argument, besides there being no evidence for the existence of a God is that the scenario and explanations you believers have for Gods purpose in creation and his motives are very weak when tested for rationality. I often find them irrational.
I am asking you several questions, you have done a good job at attempting to answer some of them (though I find your approach apologetic) at the end of the day, when your "theory" leaves so many questions unanswered, it is a weak or invalid theory. So I hope I won't have any questions nagging me when you are done answering. And I hope I will have you to thank for that.

[Edited to remove nagging doubts and items clogging my mind]

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>