Fine. So, in your view, what are the philosophical implications of the existence of a Creator God, and is there no difference between those of a Creator God with no plan and one with a plan or purpose? In my opinion, the first case seems almost equivalent to there being no god, while the second one is a lot more interesting. For instance, what our are ethical or moral obligations to this type of god? Do we owe it anything? is there any sort of moral requirement to follow its plan? Can we make an independent judgment about its plan, given our inherent evolved moral sense?
The reason I set it up the way I did was to thoroughly confuse the issue of time within the example. Entropy needn’t be an issue: can you imagine watching a movie of a session of the Sims except in reverse? It’d be something like that, I think.
At this point you’re assuming some things about God (and communication with God) that, if you did believe them, I’d be dissenting. Since you’re dissenting, it’s not me you’re dissenting with but someone else with some notion of God that’s not akin to my own. (Or that’s how I’m reading this anyway). Correct me if I’m wrong but you do seem to be assuming that communication with God is about receiving factual information from God about the empirically verifiable world. As in “God, which side of the mountain is safe from the lava flows?” or “God, what will tomorrow’s lottery numbers be?” or “God, which of these three tunnels leads to safety instead of into the lair of evil tigers?” … as opposed to “God, what is a better way for people to deal with wrongdoers?” or “God, is it wrong to value your child’s independence over your child’s duty to community?” and that kind of thing.
I think the only definite philosophical implications are:
- there is a higher power
and 2) (He) intentionally created us (though we may not be the protagonists we like to imagine we are)
As far as what we are to do with that information, I think, is up to each of us. We can each start or join our own belief system, and adhere to it to whatever degree we deem wise. Accepting there is a Creator God also give us a “who” from whom we derive our natural rights. Without it, they are arbitrary, something for man to grant or repeal at whim.
That proposition is triply flawed, as I see it:
- Without knowledge of what the Creator God is, we have no way of knowing what natural rights, if any, the Creator God wishes upon us. It’s perfectly plausible that the Creator God is more like Ares than Yahweh.
- Even if we knew what natural rights the Creator God wished upon us, there’s no particular reason why those would be morally acceptable. It’s easy to conceive of a non-omnibenevolent God. Perhaps we should be struggling against these so-called natural rights.
- We can derive natural rights without resort to a deity, anyway; indeed, many philosophers have devised systems for doing so.
How do you see Yahweh as being substantially different than Ares?
The Creator God may be like neither of them, as well. And while we may not be able to “know” what rights he wishes us to have, we can divine it. For instance, just the fact they we were given the capacity to breath and procreate, points to those things being rights. In my estimations, any way.
You’ll have to explain this more. I’m interested in what you mean.
Yes, but there arguments do not conflict with the existence of a Crreator God, only that one is not necessary.
I have the capacity to beat my wife. Quite easily, in fact, as I’m a good deal bigger. Do I have the right to do so?
Oh, hell no.
Who would YOU rather get it on with: Aphrodite, or some engaged teenaged virgin on her way to fill out her census form?
As the inaptly-named Rhymer suggests (where are the rhymes, Skald, where are the RHYMES?), suggesting that things you have the capacity to do are rights is a bit odd. How do you fill that out?
There’s a classic term for this, but I forget what it is; maybe one of our better-educated posters can enlighten us. Essentially, just because someone creates a universe doesn’t mean they’re correct in describing what’s moral or immoral. If it turns out that the universe were created by Nyarolathotep, who created it as a great joke, to enjoy watching the dismal futility of life, and who considers sadistic humor to be the greatest good, would that mean that we ought to beatify the Joker? Or would that mean that, despite the tremendously fucked-up definition of Good that our creator believes in, we ought to strive to be kind to one another?
If we derive principles of morality from sources other than an omnipotent being (which is, I think, the only reasonable way to do it), then we must judge that omnipotent being by the same standards that the rest of us use; and that being may come up wanting. Otherwise, the terms “good” and “evil” mean something very different from how they’re normally used.
I was objecting to your claim that without a creator, rights are arbitrary. That’s not necessarily true.
Fool of a Took!
It’s a reference to THOMAS the Rhymer, obviously.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I was responding to this
which I don’t think is true.
as as as evidence of interaction. I agree, no objective evidence of interaction has been established.
And as usual, you avoid actually arguing any of my points by jumping up and down and yelling insults at me.
And with a God, they are just as arbitrary. “God says so” doesn’t make anything more or less a right.
I didn’t think that was what the thread was about. read the OP and everything.
Let’s see some pictures before I decide.
Now is that something that:
- You made up?
- Someone else made up?
- Anyone has any evidence for? And if so, what is it?
I suppose what I mean is: what special extra-human abilities do you have that allow you to know this while the rest of us can’t seem to get a handle on it? Could you share please? Because this is big news if you can provide any evidence for it.
I’m not assuming anything about anyone at the moment. Say someone claims to be in communication with God. First, even assuming he is in communication with something, why assume that this something has any more moral authority than my cousin Irving? The person in contact owes us some evidence. In fact, even if I heard voices, why believe them unless the voices told me something I didn’t know, something which is verifiable? Deities in the religions of which I am aware figured this out, and gave signs - even George Burns IIRC.
Knowing whether an entity is a god is tricky, and has been covered before, but surely if an entity refuses to do anything remotely godlike, why consider it a god? It might be, true, but that doesn’t seem to be the way to bet.
Bigger dick. 
Depends on the meaning of existing. In my book, interaction in our space and time implies at least a partial existence in there also. I’d also say a god existing both inside and outside of our space and time is greater than a god outside it only, therefore this is required for omnipotence.
I think he meant his interesting digression, not the thread as a whole. I also don’t see a Creator God having any particular moral authority just from being the creator.