Would you like it if God did exist?

[SigmatheZeta]

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist. Personally, my answer to that question depends on which God we are considering. Most of the Gods of religion don't appeal to me, and that includes Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus. On the other hand, if we are talking about a good God that actually helps people without discriminating or hurting people, then yes, I'd prefer that God exists.

I believe that Hecate is a substantially more charming divinity. Ningishzida would be my second choice.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Which god? Baalzebul, the little god of Israel? Odin? Brahma/Shiva/Vishnu? Ahuramazda? Zeus? Jupiter? Janikota, Akerbeltza, Tezcatlipoca?

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I'm going to describe a situation that I have directly observed. If you wish to think "oh, the thing you made is not "rich" enough in the upper bound of behavioral complexity of a locus to be considered" but then all I have to say is 'imagine that it was then, for the sake of the consideration and if you can't, quit darkening this thread with your lack of imagination and incredulity; imagine that it is 10 years hence where there is such unbounded behavioral complexity of a locus.'

I made a universe. In that universe I was omnipotent and omniscient. Ostensibly I'm also fairly empathetic and mostly care about being 'good'. It's not a requirement to be 'good' to spin up a universe.

But most certainly assuming I have the right layers between the base universe executable and the OS, omnipotent and omniscient are true.

The issue, however, arises in that while I am omnipotent and omniscient in the context of that universe, it still requires exercise and resources to flex those capabilities.

The "true time" of the universe does not constrain me insofar as time does not move except when I drive decisions through an avatar, and omniscience/omnipotence is not an "avatar operation".

The avatar does not contain my knowledge or my power, It's merely a face that exists on a certain more "simplified" way of viewing the universe.

The O/O come from the terminal I have open alongside. And while that O/O is going to be capable of telling me a bunch of stuff, I would have to pause time in the universe for days or even years of my life to precalculate just a single decision for the sake of pulling a "dirty omniscience trick", it's honestly easier to just save states (perhaps not an option for every universe!) play through a determinancy, and then take advantage of the just-so decisions of that determinancy. Otherwise I would be digging up memory and preprocessing whole universal frames. It would take YEARS of my life, even if nobody in my universe experienced a single second of change.

Given that this is something we have observed concretely as a clearly viable model for both structure and purpose behind "godhood" and "universal creation" we can fairly well say "if there is an intelligent god like us, we have proven that this is a manner in which it may exist and interact with the universe".

It implies that omniscience is possible but unlikely, the former because it's fucking expensive and troublesome and only really good for the occasional "wanna see a magic trick?" Type activities.

Now, I haven't spoken much about omnipotence. Yes, when I play around in a "game" I have omnipotence. I've made this a demand of my own capabilities since I first started playing games! A game debugger was one of the first things I ever bought.

But Omnipotence has its own costs. I could genocide goblins and demons and night creatures. I could end vampires. I could build a world without any megabeasts or monsters or werecurses. I could specify ZERO demon types may exist and then goblins would never even be created! With a single change to the "raws" I could in fact make elves no longer think eating the flesh of intelligent creatures was acceptable. I could indicate that elves no longer slaughter people for cutting down trees.

I don't do many of those things, and it's not because I'm "evil".

I don't do those things because if I did, existing in this world would have no challenge or meaning. I don't hop into an avatar because I wish to talk to people (generally), I hop into an avatar because I want to see procedurally generated creatures, do quests, build nice things, see the occasional bar fight, maybe to write the occasional book (and toss it in a campfire should I find the result unfortunate, though bound codices are a PITA to acquire so I often savescum on that). Well, that and to carve a legendary crown out of dragon bones. Eventually the avatars I create die, and oftentimes I'll just hop into whatever was in the process of killing me.

What is interesting to me is that this universe also procedurally generated both false gods of various mythologies, and also real pantheons of gods with vaults populated by their angels. People in that world believe these deities occupy the role I actually sit in.

But I might ask, would any of you lot be happy with an arrangement like that? I find it by far the most likely cosmology to involve an intelligent creator because it is an observable cosmological truth this pattern sees instantiation. The thing is, it would mean that "God" is just a person. It doesn't even necessitate that they are the architect of the platform itself. If you could meet this "God" and have a conversation with it, you would quite possibly even be underwhelmed.

 

[Rhea]

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist.

If a god did exist, and it were benevolent, the earth would not look the way it does.

In my view, a benevolent god would fix problems before they happen. People and animals would not evolve to cheat, lie and kill. Instead, people would have phobias about rape and be unable to do it. They would have phobias about murder and break down catatonically before being able to commence it. They would be compulsive about not harming or exploiting others and to violate this compulsion would cause them to break out in itchy hives. If there were a god, there would be no “problem of evil,” because a god-like creature would be able to divert it. And would want to. Even if the god did not divert natural disasters or problems like earthquakes and cancer, they would still divert crime. Because they could, and they would want to.

Moreover, the existence of a god does not imply the existence of an afterlife. That’s an add-on feature that is not required. However, it frames the vacuousness of the whole “free will” answer to “problem of evil,” because whatever the god could do to “fix people” in the afterlife to no longer be “sinners,” a benevolent god would just do at the outset prior to suffering. If a perfect heaven is possible, then an imperfect earth is unnecessary and cruel for no reason. Just make the people perfect in the first place.

But the query,

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist.

…leaves some critical questions.
Is the god benevolent? If not, then no, of course I would not prefer that one exists. If yes, then is it wholly benevolent, or flawed benevolence?

The latter reminds me of the god in Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn series. (The second god that is. It killed the first god and was later killed by a new god.). Anyway, this second god killed the first one because it was acting badly. This seemingly benevolent second god was plagued by unintended consequences of the benevolence it tried to deploy. Tried to make the planet warmer, moved it too close to the sun, it got too hot, so the god made it constantly rain down ash to create a shadow from the sun, this left the humans to nearly starve, and on and on. Our heroes spent three books trying to kill it because they thought it was evil. It didn’t think so, it was trying its best. Nevertheless it was hunted down and killed. So flawed benevolence may not be better than no god.

How do we define our god? When I look at the definitions, “god” doesn’t seem like it should be flawed. But they all are. The christian one is spectacularly flawed by its own admission. It can make a heaven with free will but no suffering, they say, and then they turn around and assign it culpability for creating people that have to live outside of this perfect place and then later that it won’t let in. To me that’s not just a description of a monumentally flawed god, it’s actually a plot hole so large that it defines the god as not existing.

So can I answer the question without a plot hole? Yes, but earth wouldn’t look like it does today. If a god existed that was benevolent and had no plot holes, it seems like that would be cool, whether or not there was any eternity to it from my perspective.

But it’s just a thought exercise because it is achingly obvious that we do not have one.

 

[Thomas II]

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist. Personally, my answer to that question depends on which God we are considering. Most of the Gods of religion don't appeal to me, and that includes Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus. On the other hand, if we are talking about a good God that actually helps people without discriminating or hurting people, then yes, I'd prefer that God exists.

What are fractals?

 

[Thomas II]

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist. Personally, my answer to that question depends on which God we are considering. Most of the Gods of religion don't appeal to me, and that includes Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus. On the other hand, if we are talking about a good God that actually helps people without discriminating or hurting people, then yes, I'd prefer that God exists.

What are fractals?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist.

If a god did exist, and it were benevolent, the earth would not look the way it does.

In my view, a benevolent god would fix problems before they happen. People and animals would not evolve to cheat, lie and kill. Instead, people would have phobias about rape and be unable to do it. They would have phobias about murder and break down catatonically before being able to commence it. They would be compulsive about not harming or exploiting others and to violate this compulsion would cause them to break out in itchy hives. If there were a god, there would be no “problem of evil,” because a god-like creature would be able to divert it. And would want to. Even if the god did not divert natural disasters or problems like earthquakes and cancer, they would still divert crime. Because they could, and they would want to.

Moreover, the existence of a god does not imply the existence of an afterlife. That’s an add-on feature that is not required. However, it frames the vacuousness of the whole “free will” answer to “problem of evil,” because whatever the god could do to “fix people” in the afterlife to no longer be “sinners,” a benevolent god would just do at the outset prior to suffering. If a perfect heaven is possible, then an imperfect earth is unnecessary and cruel for no reason. Just make the people perfect in the first place.

But the query,

I'm wondering if any of the atheists here would prefer that God did exist.

…leaves some critical questions.
Is the god benevolent? If not, then no, of course I would not prefer that one exists. If yes, then is it wholly benevolent, or flawed benevolence?

The latter reminds me of the god in Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn series. (The second god that is. It killed the first god and was later killed by a new god.). Anyway, this second god killed the first one because it was acting badly. This seemingly benevolent second god was plagued by unintended consequences of the benevolence it tried to deploy. Tried to make the planet warmer, moved it too close to the sun, it got too hot, so the god made it constantly rain down ash to create a shadow from the sun, this left the humans to nearly starve, and on and on. Our heroes spent three books trying to kill it because they thought it was evil. It didn’t think so, it was trying its best. Nevertheless it was hunted down and killed. So flawed benevolence may not be better than no god.

How do we define our god? When I look at the definitions, “god” doesn’t seem like it should be flawed. But they all are. The christian one is spectacularly flawed by its own admission. It can make a heaven with free will but no suffering, they say, and then they turn around and assign it culpability for creating people that have to live outside of this perfect place and then later that it won’t let in. To me that’s not just a description of a monumentally flawed god, it’s actually a plot hole so large that it defines the god as not existing.

So can I answer the question without a plot hole? Yes, but earth wouldn’t look like it does today. If a god existed that was benevolent and had no plot holes, it seems like that would be cool, whether or not there was any eternity to it from my perspective.

But it’s just a thought exercise because it is achingly obvious that we do not have one.

So, in the interest of not being a judgemental asshole even with regards to any possible such gods, I am going to ask you, do you think I am benevolent?

Because I mean... I make worlds that have "problems". I would probably still do it even if I could make worlds without.

I say this because running a universe in a "benevolent way as defined by Rhea" is not really realistic for me when I run a universe.

Does that mean I shouldn't have started a universe if I can't make 100% of the people in it get what they want? The nature of this kind of universe is that it's impossible for it to be what it is and everyone to get whatever arbitrary goals they wish to achieve accomplished.

Maybe even with omnipotence and omniscience, and benevolence, it really is too much to ask that a god keep a world from being fucked up, especially if part of the reason was to have a world where there are actually things to fix and puzzles to be solved in how to fix them in ways that aren't obtusely difficult.

Nowhere in the metaphysics is it required that omnipotence, or even omniscience, for all it says of what someone may do or know, says either of those two things come easy or without tremendous work. Neither says much about what kind of universe is within their grasp to spin up.

In many cases, the nature of the universe may be such where the laws of it's probabilistics and the complexity of the statistical determinisms that the architecture will drive are completely unknown at the time of first execution.

Just because I can tell you where every particle is, and what the shape of every locus is at some point in time, it does not tell me a whiff of what of those shapes are currently implementing semaphores! It also doesn't mean that the person who spins that up will know what, of all these crazy and nonsensical consequences of the architecture are even capable of supporting evolvers, or what activity between them is evolution.

Figuring that out, even if you could freeze the simulation, is still a huge hurdle.

And then once you identify a locus that represents an intelligent causality... What then?

Now you have a giant bucket of people, and no idea how to sort them out. Evil is already among them, because while you knew some particles were swirling around, a lot of particles swirl around all the time. Maybe it's just best to leave them to "figure it out".

At any rate, maybe while you are benevolent and able to know anything at any time assuming you want to do the work between the request and "the next frame" to figure it out, maybe you are NOT infinitely wise, omnimeta; maybe while you know all things you don't know everything "about" all those things.

It's entirely likely given that this is the shape of us as we take toddler steps towards the ability to create universes

 

[Rhea]

Does that mean I shouldn't have started a universe if I can't make 100% of the people in it get what they want?

“Not giving 100% of what they want” is very different from starving a planet by covering the crops in ash.

But one thing I ponder in the “but is it better than nothing” is that no one can say they want better than nothing if they have nothing. It’s the ”are you saying you should never have been born?” claim. If I weren’t born, I wouldn’t miss anything. So if your lack of skill makes you not benevolent, then yah, maybe you shouldn’t be creating people to make them suffer.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does that mean I shouldn't have started a universe if I can't make 100% of the people in it get what they want?

“Not giving 100% of what they want” is very different from starving a planet by covering the crops in ash.

But one thing I ponder in the “but is it better than nothing” is that no one can say they want better than nothing if they have nothing. It’s the ”are you saying you should never have been born?” claim. If I weren’t born, I wouldn’t miss anything. So if your lack of skill makes you not benevolent, then yah, maybe you shouldn’t be creating people to make them suffer.

So, this gives an interesting discussion pont, then: would you rather not exist? I don't see you going through the motions of ending that existence (nor would I want to!).

If you were not born you would not miss anything, but would you be no longer, and decide now as you are to miss the rest?

As it is, I do not acknowledge suffering as something unimportant or even bad in and of itself. I have suffered a lot, sure, but it's just an experience on the path towards where I want to be.

Usually when these worlds roll off the RNG, there may be some rather unfortunate events in their history. Or their overall geometry. Don't get me started about the universe that rolled off the RNG with like, 90% of it's landmass covered with a biome that generated blood mists that turned everyone exposed to it into a "husk zombie".

I didn't even advance that universe a single tick beyond "last Thursday", but it still came to an implementation, and a lot of people died even just running the world forward in abstract until "last Thursday".

In reality I usually can give very few what they want, and it's not my responsibility to anyway. They are perfectly as enabled as I am supposed to be to seek their own happiness for themselves.

In many regards I'm not even supposed to have most of the powers and ways interacting as I do; I do because I have gone through extraordinary lengths to ADD these things to the architecture and even so, I have consternation over actually exercising them because it is unfair in many respects to the denizens of that world that I wield power in it that they do not, cannot, that I have secret power-over.

 

[Rhea]

So, this gives an interesting discussion pont, then: would you rather not exist? I don't see you going through the motions of ending that existence (nor would I want to!).

If you were not born you would not miss anything, but would you be no longer, and decide now as you are to miss the rest?

I can only care if I’m born (and able to mature to a brain that cares). If the universe was never made, it would be no skin off my back. No regrets, no laments.

Ending the existence? That’s not the question, it is a completely different question.

But if you are a “creator,” and your lack of skill makes you not benevolent, then yah, maybe you shouldn’t be creating people to make them suffer. True in parenting as well as godhood.