• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Computer thought experiment about a creator (Dwarves)

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
STAFF COMMENT: This thread was split from “Problem of Evil” which was split from “Atheism unappealing”
If there are any orphan posts that need to be moved, please use the “report” function.



Your post mentioning the bigger picture does not explain my original query. One more time, from the beginning: I quoted you as asserting "God loves us", and you wrote you had no doubt about it. I replied with a picture showing a few of the more than a quarter million people that were killed by a tsunami in 2005 and asked how you reconcile such massive cruelty with your assertion.
As I have already answered, although not to your liking, or our forum friends who are giving you their little support, maintaining the delusion thats seems to be merely hanging on a wee tiny thread i.e." I won't answer, I can't answer etc.".

I can tell you,even as a theist, and you may agree... nature killed those unfornates not God nor the devil.
Your putative god made everything, including a planet with tectonic plates the movements of which cause earthquakes and tsunamis. If he exists, he is the responsible for the deaths they cause.
The way I see it is that if there is a God, this event is evidence of him not loving us. His alleged absence is no excuse.
Yes I see the your logic..similar to Atrib's. Gods absence implies God kills indescriminately... :rolleyes:
The alleged absence of your alleged god does not relieve him from responsibility for the deaths for the same reason the Ford car company was held responsible for the fiery deaths of people driving the Ford Pinto. The placement of the car's petrol tank turned out to be a serious design fault. Ford could not argue that the company was not responsible for the deaths because it was not at the scene of the accidents when they happened. The court found it guilty of the deaths, and rightly so.

Your god, if he exists, does not love us. Disasters like the 2005 tsunami are proof of that.
And let's go a little further here... I made a world not with tectonic plates but with  vampires, demons, bogeymen, "megabeasts", etc...

I even had a chance to turn the things off, or make them harmless.

I didn't do that.

Granted just because Ford was guilty for deaths, I don't find guilt as a zero sum game personally, even so: other folks can ALSO be guilty in these deaths. If someone was drunk driving their pinto, they are guilty in their own death for their reckless driving even as Ford is guilty for the extent of the disaster due to the fuel tank placement.

Me having made a world makes me guilty of having recklessly made a whole world with joy yes, but also a bunch of unnecessary awful things that make life harder. It doesn't make me culpable directly for all the decisions everyone in that creation makes after it starts. It makes me culpable exactly for the things I actually decided, when I decided them.

every person gored by a night troll? Sorry, while I'm responsible for the nature of night trolls, I am not responsible for that night troll making that decision to abduct your children and mutate them into night trolls, the night troll made that decision.

as much as the woman who chooses to have an orgasm is not choosing to have a baby, me choosing to have night trolls in the world is not me choosing your baby specifically to be abducted and made into a night troll. You can't get me to remove night trolls from the world and I can't anyway now that it's started running. That kind of change would utterly break the universe unless you wanted me to manually genocide each and every night troll in the world, and then, well, you're asking me to commit genocide.

When I make the decision to make night trolls exist, it can even be recognized that the night trolls might very well never get a strong foothold in the world and never abduct any babies at all.

Would you really want me to kill the night trolls before they ever do anything evil at all?

I'm not even reasonably able to stop it, on account of how and where and when that is happening, and I can't always turn back the clock, especially in adventure mode. At best I can chase down the night troll and kill him after the fact most times (or more likely, accidentally trip upon a night troll lair and get my avatar left laying face down in a pile of blood and body parts).

Whole armies March on whole other armies.

And yet, I do love them, every single giant cave spider, fly-person, night troll, and dwarf.

If God appeared right now before you and put himself at  your mercy, how would you react?

I don't think the problem of evil proves a God (that probably does not exist) cannot or does not love so much as it proves that any such god, which probably does not exist, cannot possibly be perfectly good. Though he can both exist and be NOT perfectly good.

He just probably doesn't exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,265
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
It's a right shame in your universe creation there's no hope for a happy ending. Oh well, I wouldn't mind seeing this as a movie. :)
Learner, use your two brain cells to consider what that means for this universe.
What cheek, I have at least two more than you assert.

Also, it's not that there is no hope of such. I was just thinking that it would be entirely possible to start a second fortress in a second world with none of that awful shit in it. every time someone dies because of something I actually did (such as to smash them under a drawbridge when nobody else was looking), I could re-implement all their "personal numbers" and "history" into a "new", "blank" dwarf spawned in that other world.

I could do that.

But I don't.
You mean if you did, it would be like some sort of refinement, a new Heaven or new Earth? I hear ya.

Also, the denizens of that world believe in a completely different quasi-false pantheon.

The fact is, they all believe in an afterlife. They even pray, although those prayers are offered up to nothing that can actually hear them or care. I don't even hear them, and tooling up the means to do so would be onerously difficult seeing as how I lack source code.

To Wit: this all means that any hope Learner has in an afterlife is equally dubious as the hopes the Dwarves have of such.

Thanks for giving us some insight to some of your romantic philosophical outlook of a universe, as I also read, when you responded to my post, on another thread. You are the 'wizard'! (y)

 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's a right shame in your universe creation there's no hope for a happy ending. Oh well, I wouldn't mind seeing this as a movie. :)
Learner, use your two brain cells to consider what that means for this universe.
What cheek, I have at least two more than you assert.

Also, it's not that there is no hope of such. I was just thinking that it would be entirely possible to start a second fortress in a second world with none of that awful shit in it. every time someone dies because of something I actually did (such as to smash them under a drawbridge when nobody else was looking), I could re-implement all their "personal numbers" and "history" into a "new", "blank" dwarf spawned in that other world.

I could do that.

But I don't.
You mean if you did, it would be like some sort of refinement, a new Heaven or new Earth? I hear ya.

Also, the denizens of that world believe in a completely different quasi-false pantheon.

The fact is, they all believe in an afterlife. They even pray, although those prayers are offered up to nothing that can actually hear them or care. I don't even hear them, and tooling up the means to do so would be onerously difficult seeing as how I lack source code.

To Wit: this all means that any hope Learner has in an afterlife is equally dubious as the hopes the Dwarves have of such.

Thanks for giving us some insight to some of your romantic philosophical outlook of a universe, as I also read, when you responded to my post, on another thread. You are the 'wizard'! (y)

It's not romantic or philosophical. It is quite literal. There is literally a box there in my office where, so long as the process is loaded and running, a fully self-contained universe of entities who are born, have experiences, make decisions, have children, teach each other things, have free will, and so on.

Obviously, there are rigidities and degrees of freedom which we have that they lack.

But this observably means any thing that evolved as pointlessly as we seem to have will start creating simulations almost as soon as they are capable of it. This is a description of no less than exactly what we have seen done in our own reality, what I did in my own living room.

The existence of a universe, even a created one, even one that has been visited by it's deity, is not evidence of "deific perfection", that a god must be perfectly good. It does not mean they are incapable of at least being a little good, or of having figured goodness out...

But it does does mean that such is not necessary. It in fact means that such has been proven to be unnecessary.

In different language it has been proven that it is unprovable that any proposed god is good.

I would propose the PoE is strong evidence that if one were to assume a god, such a god would probably be fairly flawed as an individual.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
I would encourage you to look into it, as a game. I don't see it as a game so much as a dangerous philosophical tool.

There's no way I can adequately explain what DF is other than to say it's a fairly complete simulation of a simplified type of deterministic universe that contains actors with free will.

Perhaps it would be more useful to consider Midnight Gospel's universe simulators?

Assume that the being talking to you with the meat that you see materialized before you is a human being, no more and no less in perfection or ethical ability, and they created by some means all this in some piece of computational hardware that they were capable of building or buying or otherwise acquiring.

How do you ask them to attone? Again, consider that it might take some fair bit of work to accomplish this, even if they can shut off the system, and turn it back on with the changes made it may take them years of their life to make changes just for you.

I can say up front that in my stupid little game where I can do literally exactly the thing I describe in relation to the beings of that universe, it may cost me a whole year of my life to bring back a loved one, a whole hour of my life figuring out how to move a single person into a secondary "improved" simulation environment, the rest of my life perhaps to even move a thousand.

What about when someone asks for the loved one back who murdered 27? Do I spend a year bringing back them another 5 years figuring out how to automate to bring back all 27 of their victims? How much work do you want me to do to extend the computer hardware to process all the people who are no longer dying and freeing resources and their growing histories and microstate support?

And this is giving them more than I even get myself: assume I am in a top level universe, not a simulation. I don't have someone plucking me out and putting me in a heaven!

I would have given you infinitely more than I even get myself.

Edit: and this is just to satisfy one person. I've created millions. The proposed "god" has created an entire universe teeming with life.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
I would encourage you to look into it, as a game. I don't see it as a game so much as a dangerous philosophical tool.

There's no way I can adequately explain what DF is other than to say it's a fairly complete simulation of a simplified type of deterministic universe that contains actors with free will.

Perhaps it would be more useful to consider Midnight Gospel's universe simulators?

Assume that the being talking to you with the meat that you see materialized before you is a human being, no more and no less in perfection or ethical ability, and they created by some means all this in some piece of computational hardware that they were capable of building or buying or otherwise acquiring.

How do you ask them to attone? Again, consider that it might take some fair bit of work to accomplish this, even if they can shut off the system, and turn it back on with the changes made it may take them years of their life to make changes just for you.

I can say up front that in my stupid little game where I can do literally exactly the thing I describe in relation to the beings of that universe, it may cost me a whole year of my life to bring back a loved one, a whole hour of my life figuring out how to move a single person into a secondary "improved" simulation environment, the rest of my life perhaps to even move a thousand.

What about when someone asks for the loved one back who murdered 27? Do I spend a year bringing back them another 5 years figuring out how to automate to bring back all 27 of their victims? How much work do you want me to do to extend the computer hardware to process all the people who are no longer dying and freeing resources and their growing histories and microstate support?

And this is giving them more than I even get myself: assume I am in a top level universe, not a simulation. I don't have someone plucking me out and putting me in a heaven!

I would have given you infinitely more than I even get myself.

Edit: and this is just to satisfy one person. I've created millions. The proposed "god" has created an entire universe teeming with life.
I had to google to find what "Midnight Gospel's universe simulators" was. It is apparent that you are really into fantasy and likely fantasy role playing. You do realize that there is a real world completely unrelated to fantasy computer simulations don't you?

Personally, I am not into fantasy role playing so I'll pass on joining your game. I find real life exciting enough.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
I would encourage you to look into it, as a game. I don't see it as a game so much as a dangerous philosophical tool.

There's no way I can adequately explain what DF is other than to say it's a fairly complete simulation of a simplified type of deterministic universe that contains actors with free will.

Perhaps it would be more useful to consider Midnight Gospel's universe simulators?

Assume that the being talking to you with the meat that you see materialized before you is a human being, no more and no less in perfection or ethical ability, and they created by some means all this in some piece of computational hardware that they were capable of building or buying or otherwise acquiring.

How do you ask them to attone? Again, consider that it might take some fair bit of work to accomplish this, even if they can shut off the system, and turn it back on with the changes made it may take them years of their life to make changes just for you.

I can say up front that in my stupid little game where I can do literally exactly the thing I describe in relation to the beings of that universe, it may cost me a whole year of my life to bring back a loved one, a whole hour of my life figuring out how to move a single person into a secondary "improved" simulation environment, the rest of my life perhaps to even move a thousand.

What about when someone asks for the loved one back who murdered 27? Do I spend a year bringing back them another 5 years figuring out how to automate to bring back all 27 of their victims? How much work do you want me to do to extend the computer hardware to process all the people who are no longer dying and freeing resources and their growing histories and microstate support?

And this is giving them more than I even get myself: assume I am in a top level universe, not a simulation. I don't have someone plucking me out and putting me in a heaven!

I would have given you infinitely more than I even get myself.

Edit: and this is just to satisfy one person. I've created millions. The proposed "god" has created an entire universe teeming with life.
I had to google to find what "Midnight Gospel's universe simulators" was. It is apparent that you are really into fantasy and likely fantasy role playing. You do realize that there is a real world completely unrelated to fantasy computer simulations don't you.
And you, unable to understand the reason the metaphor has philosophical weight to it, miss the entire question.

We are on a forum spouting words at each other ostensibly to waste time and have fun.

I could say the same to you regarding this forum right now: you do realize there is a real world where you could be shoveling food into a homeless person's mouth, or perhaps doing some job better than you are?

So let's get back to our masturbatory slightly academic time wasting philosophy wherein I am playing a thought experiment and a flawed human god, but no less the creator of your universe stands before you, what do you ask this being for?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
I would encourage you to look into it, as a game. I don't see it as a game so much as a dangerous philosophical tool.

There's no way I can adequately explain what DF is other than to say it's a fairly complete simulation of a simplified type of deterministic universe that contains actors with free will.

Perhaps it would be more useful to consider Midnight Gospel's universe simulators?

Assume that the being talking to you with the meat that you see materialized before you is a human being, no more and no less in perfection or ethical ability, and they created by some means all this in some piece of computational hardware that they were capable of building or buying or otherwise acquiring.

How do you ask them to attone? Again, consider that it might take some fair bit of work to accomplish this, even if they can shut off the system, and turn it back on with the changes made it may take them years of their life to make changes just for you.

I can say up front that in my stupid little game where I can do literally exactly the thing I describe in relation to the beings of that universe, it may cost me a whole year of my life to bring back a loved one, a whole hour of my life figuring out how to move a single person into a secondary "improved" simulation environment, the rest of my life perhaps to even move a thousand.

What about when someone asks for the loved one back who murdered 27? Do I spend a year bringing back them another 5 years figuring out how to automate to bring back all 27 of their victims? How much work do you want me to do to extend the computer hardware to process all the people who are no longer dying and freeing resources and their growing histories and microstate support?

And this is giving them more than I even get myself: assume I am in a top level universe, not a simulation. I don't have someone plucking me out and putting me in a heaven!

I would have given you infinitely more than I even get myself.

Edit: and this is just to satisfy one person. I've created millions. The proposed "god" has created an entire universe teeming with life.
I had to google to find what "Midnight Gospel's universe simulators" was. It is apparent that you are really into fantasy and likely fantasy role playing. You do realize that there is a real world completely unrelated to fantasy computer simulations don't you.
And you, unable to understand the reason the metaphor has philosophical weight to it, miss the entire question.

We are on a forum spouting words at each other ostensibly to waste time and have fun.

I could say the same to you regarding this forum right now: you do realize there is a real world where you could be shoveling food into a homeless person's mouth, or perhaps doing some job better than you are?

So let's get back to our masturbatory slightly academic time wasting philosophy wherein I am playing a thought experiment and a flawed human god, but no less the creator of your universe stands before you, what do you ask this being for?
Apparently you do have difficulty understanding that there is a difference between fantasy game play and reality. Reality is challenging and entertaining enough for me so I see no reason to join your fantasy role playing game.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Sounds to me like your ‘explanation’ leaves you exactly where you started - with a God who is either powerless, ignorant, or uncaring.
I think he understand this, even though he cannot bring himself to acknowledge it publicly. He is probably unwilling to acknowledge this publicly, or even consciously in his own mind because:

(a) He is terrified that his God will punish him or,
(b) It might lead him to believe that God doesn't exist, which would mean all the time and effort he has put in searching for this god was a waste, and his whole world gets turned upside down.
I don't know Lerner's motivation and reasoning but it sounds very much like the battered wife syndrome, "I can't leave him because he loves me. It's my fault that I keep doing things that make him mad enough to beat me."
So, I might ask, what responsibility would such a flawed being as to create, even if of perfect physics, an imperfect world as relates us, imply?

I wonder sometimes as to whether any perfect system can possibly resist extending to a point where things come to exist and compete and think among the system's extensions unto chaotic structure.

To state the question a different way: let us assume a fucked up, flawed god that can do "anything" in "a single instant of time" but for him it might actually cost him something, what obligation do you expect this being to fulfill?

How does "god"  attone for having created you specifically?
That seems to be mixing different subjects. I was describing what Lerner's arguments sound like to me.

As for what a supposed god owes someone for having created them, it depends on what the person claiming there is a creator god supposes the god to be. If they suppose their god to be an all powerful loving god then existence should reflect that, no pain and suffering. If they suppose their god to be noncaring or a sadistic bastard then they could make a better, but still flawed, case for his existence considering the reality of the world.
I didn't ask about "anyone". I asked about you.

For more detail: let's assume instead of playing "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves to Armok", I am still just me in a chair playing "Human Civilization: Slaves to Allah or whatever"

I have avatarized right in front of you, materialized from nothing.

I ask you: "what do you, SkepticalBip want me to do so as to attone to you specifically for the sin of having created you?"

How do you answer?
I can't relate to your question as I don't assume there is a god and don't play video games. I have no idea what "Dwarf Fortress Slaves to Armok" is other than it must be a game.

The best I could do in imagining what some creator god 'owes' me is to think of what I would think my parents 'owed' me; protection, nourishment, and fairness until I matured enough to take care of myself.
I would encourage you to look into it, as a game. I don't see it as a game so much as a dangerous philosophical tool.

There's no way I can adequately explain what DF is other than to say it's a fairly complete simulation of a simplified type of deterministic universe that contains actors with free will.

Perhaps it would be more useful to consider Midnight Gospel's universe simulators?

Assume that the being talking to you with the meat that you see materialized before you is a human being, no more and no less in perfection or ethical ability, and they created by some means all this in some piece of computational hardware that they were capable of building or buying or otherwise acquiring.

How do you ask them to attone? Again, consider that it might take some fair bit of work to accomplish this, even if they can shut off the system, and turn it back on with the changes made it may take them years of their life to make changes just for you.

I can say up front that in my stupid little game where I can do literally exactly the thing I describe in relation to the beings of that universe, it may cost me a whole year of my life to bring back a loved one, a whole hour of my life figuring out how to move a single person into a secondary "improved" simulation environment, the rest of my life perhaps to even move a thousand.

What about when someone asks for the loved one back who murdered 27? Do I spend a year bringing back them another 5 years figuring out how to automate to bring back all 27 of their victims? How much work do you want me to do to extend the computer hardware to process all the people who are no longer dying and freeing resources and their growing histories and microstate support?

And this is giving them more than I even get myself: assume I am in a top level universe, not a simulation. I don't have someone plucking me out and putting me in a heaven!

I would have given you infinitely more than I even get myself.

Edit: and this is just to satisfy one person. I've created millions. The proposed "god" has created an entire universe teeming with life.
I had to google to find what "Midnight Gospel's universe simulators" was. It is apparent that you are really into fantasy and likely fantasy role playing. You do realize that there is a real world completely unrelated to fantasy computer simulations don't you.
And you, unable to understand the reason the metaphor has philosophical weight to it, miss the entire question.

We are on a forum spouting words at each other ostensibly to waste time and have fun.

I could say the same to you regarding this forum right now: you do realize there is a real world where you could be shoveling food into a homeless person's mouth, or perhaps doing some job better than you are?

So let's get back to our masturbatory slightly academic time wasting philosophy wherein I am playing a thought experiment and a flawed human god, but no less the creator of your universe stands before you, what do you ask this being for?
Apparently you do have difficulty understanding that there is a difference between fantasy game play and reality. Reality is challenging and entertaining enough for me so I see no reason to join your fantasy role playing game.
Well, it comes down to the matter of addressing this whole Problem of Evil thing.

You seem to think it's something that rules out a good god and here you are in a thread on the internet rather than doing something challenging in reality arguing as much.

You happen to be here showing why belief in a god is unappealing, well, the thing is, I don't believe in a god, but I do believe a god can be unappealing.

Imagine for a moment t hat instead of populating this existence I create with "dwarves" I populated it with AIs built to initially roughly emulate the behavior of dwarves and to evolve from there, for the sake of making a piece of art or whatever.

Assume that they are born, and live, and die thousands of generations on a computational island, purely for the sake of creating some new form of mind that we can be not-alone with.

Then we might see this thing in truth.

It is no less for the sake of informing our behavior and our acceptance of consequences should we do this thing.

So I ask again, what can you ask of such a flawed god as a human being?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,834
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The chief attraction of religion, at least its main stream Abrahamic varieties, is the prospect of life after death. Atheism precludes that possibility.
Not necessarily. One can still believe in some form of an afterlife that is not related to any gods.
This is quite true. Frankly I am smitten by the fact that every bit of me is eternal, you might as well say immortal. I may go to pieces but I'll never go away.
This is what I prefer to believe, AKA faith based beliefs.

Living things are animated by a little spark of the Divine. That's the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Including the difference between a living human being and their corpse. While we're alive we're a combination of the material(our bodies) and the spiritual(our spirit or soul).
So, how does that work? This would imply that our awakened self is the spirit, but when the meat (brain) gets seriously injured, a person can change greatly (completely). So this would imply the meat defines who we are and the spirit is just a fancy thing with absolutely no meaning or purpose.
The term 'spirit' seems vague. It seems to me that the term spirit is metaphysical, and has no real definition. Its just chemistry.
Understanding what is being meant when people discuss Spirit, a pre-scientific term for to describe a very complicated concept, requires quite a lot of work.

There is a very complicated structure of communications, infrastructural systems, images, image interpreters, and other less easily comprehensible things like "stories" and "neural structures that exist in common configurations regularly impacted by such stories".

If you can look at the language of spirit, and then carefully, gingerly overlay your materialism to translate the words of the mystic into the words of an academic, it might dawn on more folks that there is an available compatibilism, assuming that the spiritualist can accept the slight 'offense' of being so crass as to say a fairy is a semi-shared hallucination generated by madness and stories and subtext between communications about it rather than a flesh and blood thing separate from and independent of humans who walks the world unseen, and would even were we no more
 
Top Bottom