DejaVudew

If I was omniscient too, then yes.

I really think I would have to be God in order to make the world better, but if I was God, and God made this world because of His omniscience, then I would make this exact same world. AHHHHHHH!!!!! (Of course, that would be assuming that God exists now and created this world based off His omniscience and omnipotence).

hedonologist

So if you were given the “unfortunate” ability to create any experience for yourself or others, except that you could not force your will on others, you would not be as happy? You would have the obstacle of solving this problem of how to not be “sterile, feeble and impotent (figuratively)”. You could choose to create a world where your powers would be limited and where you would cease to exist after some time.

You can now make more struggles than you have now, if you prefer. Try cutting off a limb. hehe
I’m relatively satisfied with life, although I can imagine a much more enjoyable and free life. I like solving the problems that I can solve, and in the ideal world I proposed there would be even greater and more profound social obstacles if one chose to have any social desire, as we do now. I would not have to spend any time on merely survival and could focus on things I do more because I want to rather than because I have to.

hedonologist

Hitler and Islamic law define human nature? I don’t think so. Try taking a thousand random samples.

Regardless in the ideals I proposed no one has any power over other people, so there would be zero of that type of corruption. Any corruption a person chose would bring suffering only on themselves and those who choose to be vulnerable to them. That is a vast improvement on this world.

hedonologist

That is somewhat true (that is why in the hypothetical I ask how you would make the world if you were given the power now), but the best situation we could be in is to have only the challenges we would have if we had as much power as possible. Thus I say a God who loved someone would not let them be raped, for example. Lesser sorts of problems may seem nice because solving them is fun. People even play games and puzzles which essentially make problems for themselves to solve.

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

hedonologist

(double post)

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

hedonologist

Is it not possible that if a different experiencer were omniscience and omnipotence, that they would have different desires, thus create a different world. For example it seems to me that I have more empathy for people than any possible God does, so I would create one of the worlds I described unless I am missing something.

BTW, if we are using all the theist assumptions, wouldn’t we also assume that evil humans would make a much worse world than God? hehe It is funny and kinda sad too how when theists answer this they usually say they would make a worse world. They actually seem to imagine themselves choosing to do that which they do not desire, resulting from their belief that God is “better” than them.

hedonologist

(oops again)

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

DejaVudew

</STRONG>

This is what I meant in that I'd kinda feel like I'd have to be God, so we'd end up assuming that I held to certain properties, like omniscience, omnibenevolence, being moral in and of myself, ect. So, if we knew everything, then we'd know how to make the perfect world. If we were omnibenevolent or moral by our very nature, we would make the perfect world. But if God made this world, then that means that if I were God, that I would make this world in the same manner. I suppose different things could happen, like my first human is named Bob or something, but that seems arbitrary at best. It was really just a joke anyway.

I guess you'd stop being a human then cuz you'd have to be perfect to be God. Maybe if God asked you what you wanted in a world and promised that he'd do whatever you wanted him to, that'd make a lot of sense. It is a funny thought though.

Wyrdsmyth

I would make atrocities like rape and torture impossible. I would simply take away whatever it is inside people that makes them do such atrocities. Instead of punishing people for doing bad stuff, I'd take away the motivation to do bad stuff (whatever it is).

The difficult thing is to say where I would draw the line, as far as interfering with other lives. I'd take away many of the undignified things that happen to people. Old people wouldn't lose their faculties or get Alzeimer's or have to wear diapers. I'd make retarded people and deformed people normal and whole.

Problem is, even if I did all this, they'd still blame me anytime something bad happened (hurricanes, earthquakes, animal attacks, etc.) that isn't covered by what I stated above. What would be my justification for not bringing people back to life, or saving them from natural disasters? I confess I wouldn't have one.

I'd end up taking away nearly all human misfortune.

hedonologist

What if there were a God who was not concerned about making a world that was most beneficial to us?

If it is possible that this is the most beneficial of possible worlds, is it also possible that allowing a rape in progress to continue, would be in the victim’s best interest? If it is not in the victim’s best interest for a human to let them be raped, how could it possibly be in their best interest for God to allow it?
I was defining God as merely like some sort of alien who had the power to create the universe.
That was the original hypothetical I proposed for the purpose of getting around the issue you raised, but I'm not sure what you mean here.