Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[origamiscienceguy]

Does anyone know where the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute actually came from? It's certainly not in the Gospels, and I doubt any of the Catholic fanfics suggest it with her being a saint and all. Is it just Dan Brown to blame or something?

It's because her story is right next to a story of an unnamed prostitute who cleaned jesus' feet. People who read to quickly assumed it was mary.

[TempAcc]

Sorry, I wasn't clear there at all...  I wasn't mainly trying to argue that Christianity must have a fallible god (that was meant as an aside).  I was more curious in what people think about the implications of a fallible god or gods.

Like if we were created by an advanced spacefaring race who left us a while ago.  Or the gods do live on another plane of existence, but it's one we can reach.  What are the implications if it turns out we outpace the gods and ever have them at our mercy?  Imagine the Greek pantheon I guess.  If we met Poseidon, would we have a duty to shoot him?  Try to coexist as equals?  Or give him/them tribute for our existence, even though it's a rough and often unfair existence?

Welp, if we were created by a god or a group of fallible gods (as in, beings that are not perfect but have powers that make them godlike), my feelings about them would largely depend on their disposition towards humanity and if they achieved their godlike status through some means or have somehow been born the way they are. If they are indiferent or benevolent towards humanity, then they deserve our respect , if they're hostile, then they must be combated, especially if they claim they are actualy perfect. If they weren't always godlike, then we must study how they became godlike, so we can also achieve that :v

The problem with that hypothesis is that, if one or several fallible godlike beings somehow created us, then what created them? How did they come to be? Did they create the entirety of existence or just humanity?

In a certain way, there's still room for faith in a truly perfect God, even if such deity hasn't directly created humanity. In a way, this is how spiritism deals with humanity's relation with God. According to spiritism, there is one, truly perfect God that created (and still creates) everything, with Earth just being one not so important world thats part of creation and serves as a middle tier world for (mostly) middle level spirits to incarnate. God, however, never actualy acts or shows his intent on specific happenings, locations and people, and so he delegates specific parts of creation to groups of highly advanced spirits which are tasked with its development and of all spirits inferior to them. And so entire systems are built, managed and developed by beings other than God, but that have powers that easily makes them seem godlike. The only thing God actualy does by himself (and that nobody else can do) is create souls/spirits, and not even the highest level spirits understand just how he does it.

[Frumple]

Imagine the Greek pantheon I guess.  If we met Poseidon, would we have a duty to shoot him?  Try to coexist as equals?  Or give him/them tribute for our existence, even though it's a rough and often unfair existence?

Most of the greek pantheon would be bastards we would very much need to kill if it were possible, and the fundamental forces of existence didn't require them existing. Or imprison/cripple/sideline, etc. This remains true for almost every divine entity described by human religions throughout history. There are very, very few described gods that aren't complete bastards from the human perspective -- pretty much every one of them are, at best, things we would lock up for life were they human. Most of them we would just straight up kill, because they're mass murderers, serial rapists, etc., etc., etc. The divinities described by humanity over the years are largely overpowered immoral filth that are credited with maybe occasionally doing nice things.* They are not things we want living and interacting with us, if it is at all possible to fix that situation.

As to the "what created it" thing, that's always a silly line of questioning. Eventually you either end up cyclical or at a thing that came from nowhere. And either of those explanations can explain pretty much anything -- if omnigod "just was", then a world without omnigod can also "just be". At some point in the chain of causality you draw an arbitrary line, y'know? Personal preference is to draw the line as early as possible, if there's no substantial reason to draw it later. There's "room" for a (perfect) god(s), but there's only need for existence, and reality appearing whole cloth is frankly more reasonable than a god(s) appearing whole cloth and then creating reality -- they've both got just as much proof, and the former has less assumptions, heh.

*And yes, you can claim that humans are the same way, but you'll note that the common human moral failings generally don't involve killing people, rape, torture, and so on. The common divine moral failings very much do. The gods are monsters, from the human perspective. Maybe not all of them, but definitely the vast majority.

[Bohandas]

My understaning is that it goes a bit like this:

God wants more than just an automaton that shouts "praise!" all the time. He seeks a willing mind that chooses to praise him instead.

Because of this need for his worshipers to have free minds, so that they can choose for themselves to worhip him, and thus have genuine reverence, he has to leave his hands off, unless things get so out of hand that this ultimate goal is imperiled. Under such circumstances, he intervenes-- sometimes quite coarsely.

As a consequence of this, things can and do go in directions that displease him. Usually he is quite patient with his process, but his patience is not infinite.

Which is inconsistent with omnibenevolence

[Frumple]

Even assuming the thing is omnibenevolent to being with (thoroughly questionable), no, it isn't. First rule of theological divine benevolence judo: Benevolent is what the divine does, regardless of what the action actually is. Its only connection with what humans normally call benevolent is the arrangement of the letters. One of those cases where religious language co-opts normal language and twists it into a pretzel.

You can't exactly be inconsistent with that -- bloody thing's basically self-referential. It's a pretty effective trick! Bloody annoying part of theological study, though.

[Rolan7]

Good point except that there's a difference between "benevolence" and "morality".  The right thing isn't always the nice thing.

As a basic hypothetical, imagine if God ended the Earth and gave everyone the exact same eternal happiness after death (ignoring the logistics of making people happy equally).  That would be benevolent, but would it be fair?  Or just?

A benevolent God would do that, but a "just" one - one who followed a certain set of moral guidelines - probably wouldn't.

Of course, if I were given ultimate power, that is what I would do.  All people who actually exist would be happy.  Suffering would only happen in fiction - and it would happen a lot there, because it's interesting, but it wouldn't be real.  That's because my personal morality is about maximizing happiness.  Even if terrible people share in the benefits.  But that's because I believe evil is a product of one's environment...  And punishment is only just (or useful) when it prevents further evil.

So I think that benevolence IS the best morality.  But that's a personal belief many don't agree with.  I *think* it was John Stuart Mill who popularized that?
_{But I need to replay Socrates Jones to be sure, and to see what the counter-arguments were.  Damn that's a good game.
The SMBC cartoon was amusing but I don't think it's an a solid counter-argument}

But uh yeah.  Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done.  Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.

[Bohandas]

But uh yeah.  Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done.  Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.

To be fair schadenfreude is a type of happiness.

[breadman]

No offense to Christians meant, but the creed makes a lot more sense if God isn't *literally* all powerful.  Otherwise everything would be as he wished, yeah?
I mention Christians because they speak here most often (far behind atheists, sadly) and Christian doctrine *seems* to describe Jehovah as ALL-powerful.  But maybe some Christians don't believe that?

I can't speak for Trinitarian Christians, but it was once described to me that the power of God is Honor.  As in, the spirits of everything in existence Honor Him as long as He doesn't violate their trust.  In essence, they set rules that He must follow, in exchange for obeying His commands.  One of the main things that would violate their trust would be allowing a spirit that disobeyed His commands back into His presence, except that Christ was so beloved by everything that they allow Him to vouch for people.  God also voluntarily limits His power to avoid taking away our ability to choose, as part of a plan to help us grow up to be like Him.

So yes, not exactly all-powerful, but powerful enough to do accomplish His purposes.

I once wondered whether spirits affect the material world by deciding how quantum states collapse, which also provides an interesting limit on how much they can achieve.

But I'd love any discussion on fallible gods.  External manipulators or creators who might have limits and who, with time and dedication, humanity technically might have a chance of surpassing.

A fallible god being would be very scary indeed.  How could a being have created us without also having the power to destroy us?  Would we be treated more like toys, like lab rats, like pets, or like children?  Would we be destroyed out of boredom, fear, or mercy?

After all, we are as gods to the dwarves we watch over.  We create their planets, guide their actions, and destroy them at a whim.  Who is to say we are not living in a similar simulation?

That said, this is a popular topic of fiction.  There's always the "Gods need prayer" trope, wherein we created gods instead of the other way around, and defeat them through agnosticism, though belief in something else often creates a new kind of god.  Star Trek is fond of talking godlike beings out of destroying a ship, planet, or civilization.  Other science fiction works show us struggling to overcome species who have manipulated or subjugated us in the past, and returned just as we got powerful enough to resist them.  (Any sooner or later and it doesn't make nearly as interesting a story.)

Magic: the Gathering postulates god-like beings both from other universes, some of whom created their own universes, and from the æther between universes, who can enter a universe only partially.  Oh, and one universe has the "Gods need prayer" variety, while another has powerful spirits from a companion universe.  All types have been overcome to greater or lesser degrees.

Good point except that there's a difference between "benevolence" and "morality".  The right thing isn't always the nice thing.

As a basic hypothetical, imagine if God ended the Earth and gave everyone the exact same eternal happiness after death (ignoring the logistics of making people happy equally).  That would be benevolent, but would it be fair?  Or just?

A benevolent God would do that, but a "just" one - one who followed a certain set of moral guidelines - probably wouldn't.

Of course, if I were given ultimate power, that is what I would do.  All people who actually exist would be happy.  Suffering would only happen in fiction - and it would happen a lot there, because it's interesting, but it wouldn't be real.  That's because my personal morality is about maximizing happiness.  Even if terrible people share in the benefits.  But that's because I believe evil is a product of one's environment...  And punishment is only just (or useful) when it prevents further evil.

But uh yeah.  Many people would say that a bad person needs to be punished, for justice to be done.  Even if it doesn't increase overall happiness.

I'm not sure it's possible to take us as we are and make us perfectly happy all the time.  Granted, there are probably a few simple things that would have significantly reduced misery, but contentment halts progress, and our individual desires come into conflict a bit too often.

I once believed that punishment in the afterlife would consist mainly of being too ashamed of one's actions to face one's God, family, and peers, all of whom would have a perfect knowledge of everything that had been done, leaving one to desire nonexistence or at least anonymity.

Sometimes I wish I still could.

[origamiscienceguy]

I believe that God is All-Powerful. He tolerates sin and evil on the earth so that we can still have free will. I believe that he could at any moment get rid of evil, but he chooses not to because he loves us. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but he gave humans and angels free will, and any that choose foolishly will suffer the consequences (hell, an eternity without God, etc.) But those that choose to love God will get an eternity with no sin, but with our free will intact. If he were to zap out all evil, we would no longer have the ability to choose between right and wrong, so God doesn't do it.

[TD1]

But according to you he does. He zaps it out when you die and go to heaven.

[origamiscienceguy]

But according to you he does. He zaps it out when you die and go to heaven.

No. In heaven, our free will will be intact, so there must be the possibility of acting foolishly, but I believe that we will all be wiser once our sinful nature is gone. So there will be no sin, but we will still have free will. Adam and Eve were tempted, but I also believe that there will be no more temptation in heaven either, which removes that possibility. I hope that makes sense.

[Rolan7]

@origamiscienceguy
God could do just one more miracle, and it would count a million times more than the ones he already did.  99% of the world would be saved, free will intact.

@breadman
Your post is very interesting but I can't make a proper response just now.  Sorry, hopefully someone will.

[TD1]

So he tolerates sin on earth to maintain free will, then when we die he takes away the sin and we still have free will?

[Frumple]

O's saying that something happens in the process of dying/getting in to heaven that makes it so you won't sin anymore by your own choice, near as I can parse. Also God will no longer be tempting people/allowing them to be tempted for whatever reason, which would probably help a helluva' lot. The ability to sin would still be there, the deity would just finally get off its arse and remove the conditions that cause it to trigger, more or less.

As always, it beggars of the question of why not just do that now, but *shrugs*

That's been a question beggared since about a half generation after the first eschatology-focused religious belief failed to manifest its apocalypse (several thousand years ago), I rather imagine. Next year, we promise!

[origamiscienceguy]

The source is Satan. I don't know why/how he sinned at first. Does anybody have any ideas?