[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 725x545, StairwayToHeaven.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1114002 No.1114002 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think of the concept of a loving but imperfect god, trying his best to run a complex universe, but who, to guarantee the free will, would make in sort it is impossible to prove that he actually exist?

>> No.1114016

Doesn't make sense.

>> No.1114015

define god

>> No.1114027

>>1114015
a conscience that created the universe and still has complete power on it.
>>1114016
is it the simple concept of God that doesn't make sens, or does your rebuttal concern something more specific in the question?

>> No.1114025

Easy: sage.

>> No.1114032

We've already established that he's imperfect. As such, his existence does not preclude free will.

Hell, on those terms, I might be considered a "loving but imperfect god, trying his best to run a complex universe". The question is whether it is worth it to call an imperfect being "god".

>> No.1114036

Anything worthy of being god wouldn't have to hide itself to grant free will.
Notwithstanding, free will hasn't been granted.

>> No.1114041

>>1114032
>We've already established that he's imperfect. As such, his existence does not preclude free will.
I have to say I do not understand the correlation.

>> No.1114061

>>1114032
>The question is whether it is worth it to call an imperfect being "god".
why not?
Before monotheism, polytheism had conception of god with defaults.
>>1114027
Scrap the "created the universe" a conscience who rule the universe is enough to be defined as God.

>> No.1114063

>>1114041
Because he's imperfect, he does not have absolute power. So, there is adequate room for freedom from God's constraints. At least, that's my interpretation.

>>1114036
Depends on how you define free will. We are free to have a will, but are not free to implement our wills as we please.

>> No.1114087

>>1114063
His area of imperfection was not determined. He might still be powerful and wise enough to have the capacity to grant free will, even if he is imperfect.

>> No.1114095

>to guarantee the free will, would make in sort it is impossible to prove that he actually exist

Why, unless this is a deistic god with no religion? If deistic, this is not the most parsimonious answer and should not be believed.

>> No.1114110

>>1114036
God exist.
God show itself.
Immortal soul is proven true, as well as enlightenment and punishment in afterlife.
People do not behave for the sake of themselves, but rather to get a promised reward, or fear of punishment.
Free will cease therefore to exist.

Hence, for free will to remain, god must remain hidden.

>> No.1114111

>>1114087
I was saying that if he is imperfect, he does not need to grant free will as we will already have it. (Particularly: free will with respect to God)

>> No.1114118

>>1114111
see>>1114110

>> No.1114123

>>1114110
>People do not behave for the sake of themselves, but rather to get a promised reward, or fear of punishment.

So you're saying there should be some people who believe anyway, and others who don't believe and are rewarded/punished with no warning?

>> No.1114128

You don't even need to postulate reasons for him not interacting with us. Once you're dealing with an imperfect creator, there's no reason to assume he knows where we are or even if we exist.

>> No.1114126

>>1114002

>imperfect

If God is imperfect he isn't omnipotent which means he isn't the God I believe in.

>trying his best to run a complex universe
No

This is I believe deduced from Christian theology but you should be aware that it goes quite against what Christians believe.

>> No.1114133

>>1114118
>>1114110
Your definition of free will is overly constrictive. Reward and punishment are incentives. They motivate people to behave a certain way. However, people are motivated by incentives regardless of whether they believe in God. Therefore, God's existence is inconsequential because none of us have true free will anyway.

>> No.1114144

A unknowable god is meaningless. Next.

>> No.1114145

>>1114123
even the people who believe doesn't receive any kind of warning.

>> No.1114164

>>1114126
God created the man at his own images.
Man is imperfect.
Therefore God...

>> No.1114172

An imperfect creator has about the same explanatory power as anthropic reasoning in a many-vacuum universe. But it's not clear we need either one of those. And of the two, Occam's razor would suggest the latter. But it's not ruled out, and is much less constrained by the evidence than the perfect creator envisioned by religious people.

>> No.1114185

>>1114133
It's impossible to tell if free will doesn't exist.

>> No.1114197

>>1114164

>God created the man at his own images.

True.

>Man is imperfect.

Well hardly. You can have some basis for that biologically I believe but still.

God also so that everything was perfect. Everything was as he wished it. Man is just as God wished him to be.

>> No.1114219

>>1114185
It is if you define it. Which you did.
>People do not behave for the sake of themselves, but rather to get a promised reward, or fear of punishment. Free will cease therefore to exist.
By this definition, we do not have free will.

>> No.1114216
File: 32 KB, 395x315, Audrey_Tautou-47601wallpaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1114216

>>1114002

Good to see there are still some normal thinking people here.

Who have let thier self-image of; "i am a smart person, so i must be an atheist" thoughts behind long time ago.

What if a myth can be usefully applied in practice. you don`t know how and why, but there seems to be something usefull (and maybe true) about the myth.

Believing appairs to be the destiny of a human, so why swim against the tie and fallow a verry unlikely logic.

- free will
- why there is good/bad
- gives people peace
sceince can not say anything about the subjects abouve.
Only a theorie which explains all these things abouve can replace the idea of a god.

ps. anyone who still thinks determinism is a reasonable worldview (a lot here) probebly hasnt read a sceintific article scince the early 80`s.
These people should catch up with quantum knowledge a bit,... watch "Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment" on youtube.

>> No.1114212

>>1114197

To be clear. Man is perfect in God's own perspective.

>> No.1114230

Just the image of the christian ronery god sweating and controlling every single electron makes me smile due to absurdity.

>> No.1114246

>>1114230

What appears/is random to us; isn't random to God and besides he's omnipotent.

>> No.1114278

>>1114216
If myths are useful in practice then you should be able to show evidence to support that assertion. You might at least have a tenable argument philosophically, i.e. belief is itself a "good" trait, but you would be hard pressed to show that potential material existence is practically applicable.

>> No.1114279

>>1114219
that has never been defined as a complete definition. It simply state one way it can be limited.

Acting for afterlife reward can lead to a different behavior than acting for a present reward. Acknowledging an afterlife also limit and affect our vision for the future of our society and descendant.

Hence why knowing that god exist would deter our free will and would lead us to act differently than we would normally do.

And as we would exist and act for him rather than for us, it would affect our development and we would tend to less take our destiny in our own hand.

>> No.1114298

>>1114279
Okay. Now your definition of free will is useless. You're saying the free will exists when we act for any incentive EXCEPT afterlife incentive. It's a definition totally specific to this argument with no practical use.

>> No.1114300

>>1114144
even if he has the power to control and affect the universe?

>> No.1114317

>>1114298
My definition of free will is to be able to decide what direction will have our live and to be able to decide whether or not we will care for other.

>> No.1114345

>>1114317
Then knowledge of the afterlife won't change that. Why would consequences in the afterlife be judged under a different criteria than consequences in this life? Eternal punishment is just another motivator, like lifetime imprisonment.

>> No.1114348

>>1114298
what is said is that acknowledging god limit the number of option.

>> No.1114384

>>1114345
>Acknowledging an afterlife also limit and affect our vision for the future of our society and descendant.

A society build for the glory of one being would be different than one build for our own merit. It might also be less grand.

Or it could be worst. That's the whole point of free will: exploring options God wouldn't have considered himself.

>> No.1114407

>>1114348

Irrelevant. Freewill refers to your choice to decide what to do with life. And mind you; you take it for granted that you will choose the high road but many don't.

>> No.1114402

>>1114230
I just pictured God as a cosmic Kimmo Alm.

>> No.1114414

>>1114002
I would still be atheist because of religious nutjobs trying to force their interpretation of said god down my throat.

>> No.1114418

>>1114384
Acknowledging ANYTHING limits and affects our vision for the future. Acknowledging death limits my vision, because I would avoid it. Acknowledging automobiles limits my vision, because I would not consider alternative transportation. Acknowledging cake limits my vision, because I would seek it. The afterlife is no different.

Also consider that there are already many people who do acknowledge the afterlife, but choose to disobey their religious teachings anyway. Don't you think there would be people who rebel against god even if he made himself known?

>> No.1114427

>>1114407
see >>1114384
the key point is: "exploring options God wouldn't have considered himself."

>> No.1114452

>>1114418
But the concept of God bring more limitation than any other. A simple exempt: why look to live longer when you know there is an afterlife?

>> No.1114462

>>1114418
>Don't you think there would be people who rebel against god even if he made himself known?
There would be less and they would be considered fool.

>> No.1114476

>>1114452
It does not matter that god has incredible incentive. That incentive is not a limitation. We are still free to disobey. We simply must face the consequences.

>> No.1114485

>>1114476
but as a whole, the society would be more limited and less imaginative.

>> No.1114488

>>1114485
Not limited.

>> No.1114509

If such a creature exists, then it would be no God.

>> No.1114530

>>1114488
imagination is the ultimate limit.

>> No.1114535

>>1114530
No, it's not. Stop being retarded.