Worshipping a creator of the universe

[jp255]

I started this thread in attempt to find out people's views on how they are able to worship a creator of the universe. Discussion of whether or not a creator exists or not is not the intention of this thread, and I'd ask non-believers to ask themselves "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?".

 

When I consider this question and ask it to myself, I respond no. If a creator's existence were proven even hypothetically I could not worship it, simply because I couldn't allow myself to worship the being/thing that invented/designed the concept of survival of the fittest, as well as many of the nasty possibilities present in the fitness landscape (genetic diseases etc.). I wouldn't consider the creator to be loving as some people do, and because of this I find it difficult to understand or even relate to people who maintain religious beliefs (only on this particular topic, and maybe a few others) and I find it difficult to understand how such religious concepts/ideas are so successful as memes!

 

 

So I ask other people (that do genuinely believe in a creator without the hypotheitcal consideration), how can you worship a creator of the universe? Don't any of my points make worshipping a god hard to do? and would any non-believer's respond to the question?

 

discussion of evidence for a creator is off topic.

Edited November 22, 2012 by jp255

[Phi for All]

I would wonder why something that could create the whole universe would want my worship. As a father I don't even want that kind of blind, unquestioning adoration from my child. Does worship fuel his godly power cells or something, and is there a synthetic alternative?

[zapatos]

Don't any of my points make worshipping a god hard to do?

Well, sure they do. But you just stacked the deck against worshipping the god you described. You started out well enough just by asking "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?", but you then proceeded to make him someone people would not be comfortable worshipping, by giving him the attributes of a genetic-disease-creating hater.

 

The fact that you find it difficult to understand how such religious concepts/ideas are so successful as memes stems from the fact that you do not understand that people who worship god generally do not view him in such a negative light.

[iNow]

IMO, the concept of worship is anathema to a critically thinking mind that is plastic and evolving in its knowledge and beliefs.

[jp255]

The fact that you find it difficult to understand how such religious concepts/ideas are so successful as memes stems from the fact that you do not understand that people who worship god generally do not view him in such a negative light.

 

I do understand that they have different views and opinions to me, and I realise it is unlikely that people who worship a creator have the same line of thinking as me. What I can't understand is how one can arrive at a positive view of the creator. So I ask "how/why do/can you worship a creator?"

 

IMO, the concept of worship is anathema to a critically thinking mind that is plastic and evolving in its knowledge and beliefs.

That's a great statement, a quote to remember. Before I started the thread I was only considering this scenario and thinking narrowly. After having read and considered your post, I think that your statement is likely to be true.

 

I would wonder why something that could create the whole universe would want my worship

 

A creator doesn't have to want that in order for people to be able to worship it though. Don't some people worship a creator even without the creator wanting them to?

[Ophiolite]

I am not entirely sure what exactly worship entails. I admire many human beings: Nelson Mandela, Patrick Moore, Jane Goodall, Sidney Poitier, Queen Elizabeth, etc. If I can admire these people with their limited achievements and known weaknesses it is not difficult to imagine having a much stronger admiration and respect for an entity capable of creating an entire universe, regardless of some equally large shortcomings. I suppose that admiration and respect could be called worship.

 

If I were a conventional follower of religion I would find absolutely no problem with the existence of poverty, war, disease, catstrophe and death, since these would be brief interludes en route to eternal life.

[Dekan]

When we "worship" God , aren't we just playing safe. I mean, suppose there actually is a Supreme Being, or "God", who created the present Universe.

No rational human could admire the Universe. It's nasty and cruel, as jp255 points out. It makes humans undergo continual suffering.

 

But the suffering might get worse, if we raised objections. Suppose we criticised God's creation. Then He might get angry and inflict us with even worse tribulations.

Therefore it's best for us to placate Him with praise and worship. By doing so, we pretend that really - it's a good life.

As in the famous SF story.

[Moontanman]

I honestly do not understand why a god being would want to be worshiped. It sounds more like what a human would require if they were god. The idea that an all powerful being would need to have his ego stroked like a insecure little boy is difficult to understand

[Ophiolite]

No rational human could admire the Universe.

I guess that means I am not rational.

 

I guess that means that to be impressed by the emergence of complex objects like stars, complex structure like galaxies, complex processes like nuclear fusion, and complex biological organisms with the capacity to conduct self examination, is all evidence of a deranged mind.

 

I guess that means that to be in awe of a supernova, or abiogenesis, or the volcanic maelstrom of Io, or the flight of a butterfly, is to display a foolish and grossly illogical approach.

 

I guess that means I should encourage people to think their glass is much less than half empty, since its pathetic contents are outweighed by the cold, indifferent balance of the universe.

 

Tell you what - I think I'll just stay irrational.

[jp255]

If I can admire these people with their limited achievements and known weaknesses it is not difficult to imagine having a much stronger admiration and respect for an entity capable of creating an entire universe, regardless of some equally large shortcomings. I suppose that admiration and respect could be called worship.

 

I guess that means I am not rational.

 

I guess that means that to be impressed by the emergence of complex objects like stars, complex structure like galaxies, complex processes like nuclear fusion, and complex biological organisms with the capacity to conduct self examination, is all evidence of a deranged mind.

 

I guess that means that to be in awe of a supernova, or abiogenesis, or the volcanic maelstrom of Io, or the flight of a butterfly, is to display a foolish and grossly illogical approach.

 

I am impressed and amazed by the universe as well and I understand you there. However I would not admire or respect the creator for creating this universe as that entity would be the cause of all suffering. If this universe was somekind of Utopia then sure I would admire and respect the creator. It isn't though, and how many generations (during which there will probably be suffering, after evolution of pain sensation of course) does it take before an organism capable of contemplating the beauty of various features of the universe can arise? Is that worth it?

 

You said it isn't difficult for you to admire and respect an entity which is capable of creating a universe such as this one, what would your opinion be of the creator that did create this universe? Stay the same or change?

 

It is for these reasons I find it hard to see the attraction or allure of the idea of a creator, and wonder why so many people are happy and comfortable with the idea of a creator. Why couldn't the creator have created a utopia? Shouldn't the creator be viewed as a criminal in the eyes of most societies (according to law?)?

 

I honestly do not understand why a god being would want to be worshiped. It sounds more like what a human would require if they were god. The idea that an all powerful being would need to have his ego stroked like a insecure little boy is difficult to understand

 

You and Phi for all do make good points also. I didn't mention the creator's desires though.

Edited November 23, 2012 by jp255

[Dekan]

I guess that means I am not rational.

 

I guess that means that to be impressed by the emergence of complex objects like stars, complex structure like galaxies, complex processes like nuclear fusion, and complex biological organisms with the capacity to conduct self examination, is all evidence of a deranged mind.

 

I guess that means that to be in awe of a supernova, or abiogenesis, or the volcanic maelstrom of Io, or the flight of a butterfly, is to display a foolish and grossly illogical approach.

 

I guess that means I should encourage people to think their glass is much less than half empty, since its pathetic contents are outweighed by the cold, indifferent balance of the universe.

 

Tell you what - I think I'll just stay irrational.

 

You're right to be impressed by the Universe - it's a big job, containing trillions of stars.

 

But isn't this the point - the stars don't seem to be arranged very rationally. They should be in nice neat geometric patterns. Instead they look like the result of some drunk picking up a bucket of sand and chucking it all over the place.

 

This is bound to offend human rationality and smacks of gross incompetence by the divine Perpetrator.

 

And the flight of a butterfly isn't awesome, except in the sense of being awsomely bad. It's ungainly, aerodynamically inefficient, and wouldn't be tolerated by any aircraft designer.

 

Be impressed by such things, if you will - but don't admire them.

[zapatos]

I do understand that they have different views and opinions to me, and I realise it is unlikely that people who worship a creator have the same line of thinking as me. What I can't understand is how one can arrive at a positive view of the creator. So I ask "how/why do/can you worship a creator?"

It seems to me that you are following two different lines of thought at the same time. Your first question was "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?". You then proceeded to assign negative attributes to this newly proven god. So that is an easy one; it would be difficult to worship a god that did bad things. But what if this newly proven god was found to only have positive attributes. For example, what if he created the universe, to the best of his ability, to the detriment of his own existence, and did his best to shield us from harm, simply for altruistic reasons? At that point it is no longer difficult to worship him.

 

Your second line of thought seems to be, how can you have a positive view of the creator based on what we know now, which is that there is disease, and that there is no proof of god. In this case, I believe it is how you look at things. You look at the bad, assume it was done to harm us, and conclude he cannot be worshipped. Others look at the good, assume it was done for our benefit, and conclude he can be worshipped.

 

A simple answer to how you can worship a creator is easy. All you have to do is believe he exists, he gave us the heavens and earth, that all that happens to us is to our benefit whether we understand it or not, and that he would even sacrifice his son so that we may live forever. Sounds like a good guy to me.

 

I am impressed and amazed by the universe as well and I understand you there. However I would not admire or respect the creator for creating this universe as that entity would be the cause of all suffering. If this universe was somekind of Utopia then sure I would admire and respect the creator.

Again, I find that you do not understand the views of those who believe.

 

A child is given a car by his parent. He is not grateful as the car breaks down occassionally, he can't always get where he wants to go, he has to pay for gas and repairs. Far from perfect. So what does he do? Assume the parent is purposely causing distress for him because the gift was not perfect, or assume the parent gave him a gift out of love and with the best of intentions?

 

You seem to tend to assume the worst. Believers tend to assume the best.

 

But isn't this the point - the stars don't seem to be arranged very rationally. They should be in nice neat geometric patterns. Instead they look like the result of some drunk picking up a bucket of sand and chucking it all over the place.

 

This is bound to offend human rationality and smacks of gross incompetence by the divine Perpetrator.

 

And the flight of a butterfly isn't awesome, except in the sense of being awsomely bad. It's ungainly, aerodynamically inefficient, and wouldn't be tolerated by any aircraft designer.

 

Be impressed by such things, if you will - but don't admire them.

I also admire them. I find the laws of physics and the resultant universe rational and elegant. In fact, the only thing that ever causes me to question my atheistic views is this very point. It almost seems too inspiring to not have had a cause.

Edited November 24, 2012 by zapatos

[doG]

But the suffering might get worse, if we raised objections. Suppose we criticised God's creation.

I doubt it. I frequently criticize it's flaws in design and the suffering of humans to theists and don't experience any suffering for it myself.

[immortal]

So I ask other people (that do genuinely believe in a creator without the hypotheitcal consideration), how can you worship a creator of the universe? Don't any of my points make worshipping a god hard to do? and would any non-believer's respond to the question?

 

discussion of evidence for a creator is off topic.

 

Hi, I am a theist and I do worship a God but what makes you think that he has given you the freedom to make the choice of whether to worship him or not?

 

 

21. Of God's eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will, whereby all He has made pleased Him in the eternal design as well as in the actual result.

 

For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, "And God saw that it was good," than the approval of the work in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but, on the contrary, nothing would have been made had it not been first known by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good.

 

Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker's approval, as it had while yet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are, and things which have been.

 

For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present, and future, though they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure.

 

And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. Wherefore, if the only object had been to inform us who made the light, it had been enough to say, "God made the light"; and if further information regarding the means by which it was made had been intended, it would have sufficed to say, "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light," that we might know not only that God had made the world, but also that He had made it by creature be intimated to us, viz., who made it, by what means, and why, it is written, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good." If, then, we ask who made it, it was "God." If, by what means, He said "Let it be," and it was. If we ask, why He made it, "it was good." Neither is there any author more excellent than God, nor any skill more efficacious than the word of God, nor any cause better than that good might be created by the good God.

 

This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God; whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed of these things by those who had read them, or, by his quick-sighted genius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisible through the things that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those who had discerned them....

 

- City of God, Saint Augustine

 

 

Its in the nature of things, its God's nature to create and his works are good, we can't do much about it.

[Ophiolite]

You're right to be impressed by the Universe - it's a big job, containing trillions of stars.

 

But isn't this the point - the stars don't seem to be arranged very rationally. They should be in nice neat geometric patterns. Instead they look like the result of some drunk picking up a bucket of sand and chucking it all over the place.

If you had explained at the outset that you were an anal retentive we could have saved ourselves a lot of bother.

[jp255]

For example, what if he created the universe, to the best of his ability, to the detriment of his own existence, and did his best to shield us from harm, simply for altruistic reasons? At that point it is no longer difficult to worship him.

 

That is not enough in order to make it no longer difficult to worship him, at least for me. For me, it must be shown that the creator did not have a choice in the matter of whether or not this universe is to be created. Purely because If I were in it's position I wouldn't be comfortable being the ultimate cause of everything that happens in this universe and I wouldn't have chosen to create this universe. I'd think that this should be a fairly common opinion, that most people wouldn't be comfortable being the cause of everything. Shouldn't we apply ethics to the choice to create this universe in a similar way we do to the choice to breed knock-in alzheimers mice for instance?

 

So further information is required in order for me to form an opinion of the creator and depends on the following:

1. did the creator have a choice to create this universe? if it had choice, then why?

2. did it create this universe to the best of it's ability?

 

You seem to tend to assume the worst. Believers tend to assume the best.

You are correct (and thanks for pointing it out). I was making various assumptions. Ones that other people might not have been making. My opinion is dependent on the answers to 1 and 2. To be more specific, I wouldn't be able to understand people who form positive views about the creator if it had the choice to create this universe, however if they form the a positive opinion about the creator because they think it didnt have a choice and created this universe to the best of their ability then I can understand.

 

I'd assume that someone with a positive opinion of the creator, who believes it had choice, would be comfortable to create this universe if placed in the position of the creator. Isn't this something that society should consider unethical, in the same way alzheimer's mice breeding is considered unethical?

 

What are the answers offered by religions to 1 and 2?

 

What are other peoples' opinions on this matter?

 

Hi, I am a theist and I do worship a God but what makes you think that he has given you the freedom to make the choice of whether to worship him or not?

While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good.

So, you are saying that I cannot hold an opinion such as the one I would have if the creator was found to have a choice to create or not to create this universe? You think that the creator only created what it saw to be good, and so freedom of choice is nonexistant? That is a little bit hard to prove, no?

 

If you think this then what would you reply to a question such as this. "What good did the creator see in malaria, one of his many creations?"

Edited November 26, 2012 by jp255

[immortal]

So, you are saying that I cannot hold an opinion such as the one I would have if the creator was found to have a choice to create or not to create this universe? You think that the creator only created what it saw to be good, and so freedom of choice is nonexistant? That is a little bit hard to prove, no?

 

Lets think this way, yes actually God is indeed an Evil Demon, he is the deus deceptor (the deceptive God), an evil genius who deceives you in believing that an external world exists when in fact it doesn't.

 

"The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other minds, to Descartes' senses, where in fact there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations, when in fact Descartes has no body. Most Cartesian scholars opine that the evil demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic."

People think that this is blasphemous but actually its not, he is indeed deceptive. Descartes thought that the only thing that this evil genius cannot deceive him or make him falsely believe is the fact that he exists and therefore he based his philosophy on "I think, therefore I am".

Later Kant came on and said to know anything that is true of me, I must first know that it is me of whom it is true and he showed that we cannot know that.

… the I that I think is distinct from the I that it, itself, intuits …; I am given to myself beyond that which is given in intuition, and yet know myself, like other phenomena, only as I appear to myself, not as I am …

- Kant

So everything you thought of as true is not at all true. But, hey? Is God really an evil demon? Is he deceptive?

Well, the fact that he has revealed himself to people throughout the history of mankind and has given us the truth which we have as the word of God proves that the God we have is a Good God as David Hume says,

III.X.1

BY the mere light of reason it seems difficult to prove the Immortality of the Soul. The arguments for it are commonly derived either from

metaphysical

topics, or

moral

or

physical.

But in reality, it is the gospel, and the gospel alone, that has brought life and immortality to light.

III.X.45

 

 

 

Nothing could set in a fuller light the infinite obligations, which mankind have to divine revelation; since we find, that no other medium could ascertain this great and important truth.

- David Hume, Of the immortality of the Soul

Therefore irrespective of what you do or think or worship, the nature of God and your true nature will not change, the truth is unchangeable.

 

If you think this then what would you reply to a question such as this. "What good did the creator see in malaria, one of his many creations?"

 

I'll let the stoics answer you that.

 

 

2. We ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have a certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker's art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating. And again, figs, when they are quite ripe, gape open, and in the ripe olives the very circumstance of their being near to rottenness adds a peculiar beauty to the fruit. And the ears of corn bending down, and the lion's eyebrows, and the foam which flows from the mouth of wild boars, and many other things--though they are far from being beautiful, if a man should examine them severally--still, because they are consequent upon the things which are formed by nature, help to adorn them, and they please the mind; so that if a man should have a feeling and deeper insight with respect to the things which are produced in the universe, there is hardly one of those which follow by way of consequence which will not seem to him to be in a manner disposed so as to give pleasure. And so he will see even the real gaping jaws of wild beasts with no less pleasure than those which painters and sculptors show by imitation; and in an old woman and an old man he will be able to see a certain maturity and comeliness; and the attractive loveliness of young persons he will be able to look on with chaste eyes; and many such things will present themselves, not pleasing to every man, but to him only who has become truly familiar with nature and her works...

 

- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

 

 

There is goodness in all works of nature.

[jp255]

I'll let the stoics answer you that.

 

 

2. We ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have a certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker's art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating. And again, figs, when they are quite ripe, gape open, and in the ripe olives the very circumstance of their being near to rottenness adds a peculiar beauty to the fruit. And the ears of corn bending down, and the lion's eyebrows, and the foam which flows from the mouth of wild boars, and many other things--though they are far from being beautiful, if a man should examine them severally--still, because they are consequent upon the things which are formed by nature, help to adorn them, and they please the mind; so that if a man should have a feeling and deeper insight with respect to the things which are produced in the universe, there is hardly one of those which follow by way of consequence which will not seem to him to be in a manner disposed so as to give pleasure. And so he will see even the real gaping jaws of wild beasts with no less pleasure than those which painters and sculptors show by imitation; and in an old woman and an old man he will be able to see a certain maturity and comeliness; and the attractive loveliness of young persons he will be able to look on with chaste eyes; and many such things will present themselves, not pleasing to every man, but to him only who has become truly familiar with nature and her works...

 

- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

 

 

There is goodness in all works of nature.

 

I'm not sure what the first half of your post was attempting to answer. The quoted response doesn't directly answer the question I asked you, and it is an unsatisfactory response. What do you find pleasing about malaria?

[immortal]

I'm not sure what the first half of your post was attempting to answer. The quoted response doesn't directly answer the question I asked you, and it is an unsatisfactory response.

 

I was attempting to answer that God is not a jerk.

 

What do you find pleasing about malaria?

 

Its pleasing to see that patients having sickle cell anaemia are resistant to malaria.

 

 

[zapatos]

What do you find pleasing about malaria?

It is a beautiful example of how evolution can develop a highly efficient parasitic lifecycle utilizing multiple hosts.

 

For me, it must be shown that the creator did not have a choice in the matter of whether or not this universe is to be created. Purely because If I were in it's position I wouldn't be comfortable being the ultimate cause of everything that happens in this universe and I wouldn't have chosen to create this universe.

Can you expand on this please? I don't understand why having no choice to give us a chance at life is better than making the decision to give us a chance at life.

[jp255]

Can you expand on this please? I don't understand why having no choice to give us a chance at life is better than making the decision to give us a chance at life.

If there was a choice for the creator to make, then it would have been made since we exist. This would likely be worse than no choice at all, depending on the reason for choosing to create this universe. No choice would mean that the creation of this universe was guaranteed, as that is the only possible outcome and the creator couldn't prevent it. It would be better because the choice scenario would probably conflict with my personal ethical considerations (I can't imagine any instance in which I could justify creating this universe).

 

Its pleasing to see that patients having sickle cell anaemia are resistant to malaria.

 

It is a beautiful example of how evolution can develop a highly efficient parasitic lifecycle utilizing multiple hosts.

Ok. I get it.

[PeterJ]

"An hours contemplation is worth a year's worship"

 

A saying of the the Prophet Mohammed.

[Villain]

I started this thread in attempt to find out people's views on how they are able to worship a creator of the universe. Discussion of whether or not a creator exists or not is not the intention of this thread, and I'd ask non-believers to ask themselves "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?".

 

When I consider this question and ask it to myself, I respond no. If a creator's existence were proven even hypothetically I could not worship it, simply because I couldn't allow myself to worship the being/thing that invented/designed the concept of survival of the fittest, as well as many of the nasty possibilities present in the fitness landscape (genetic diseases etc.). I wouldn't consider the creator to be loving as some people do, and because of this I find it difficult to understand or even relate to people who maintain religious beliefs (only on this particular topic, and maybe a few others) and I find it difficult to understand how such religious concepts/ideas are so successful as memes!

 

 

So I ask other people (that do genuinely believe in a creator without the hypotheitcal consideration), how can you worship a creator of the universe? Don't any of my points make worshipping a god hard to do? and would any non-believer's respond to the question?

 

discussion of evidence for a creator is off topic.

 

Would life without any challenge be better? If everything was 'good' or easy or pleasant would those things lose their value?

 

If you describe the environment as imperfect, how could it be otherwise, even 'utopia' would be imperfect if it was too perfect.

 

 

 

 

 

You're right to be impressed by the Universe - it's a big job, containing trillions of stars.

 

But isn't this the point - the stars don't seem to be arranged very rationally. They should be in nice neat geometric patterns. Instead they look like the result of some drunk picking up a bucket of sand and chucking it all over the place.

 

This is bound to offend human rationality and smacks of gross incompetence by the divine Perpetrator.

 

And the flight of a butterfly isn't awesome, except in the sense of being awsomely bad. It's ungainly, aerodynamically inefficient, and wouldn't be tolerated by any aircraft designer.

 

Be impressed by such things, if you will - but don't admire them.

 

I assume that you're not much of a Jackson Pollock fan then.

[jp255]

Would life without any challenge be better? If everything was 'good' or easy or pleasant would those things lose their value?

 

If you describe the environment as imperfect, how could it be otherwise, even 'utopia' would be imperfect if it was too perfect.

 

These are good questions. Whilst I did mention Utopia, I was using that as the best case scenario if one was to create a universe. We can't observe other universes with less harmful fitness landscapes (if they are possible) and/or less challenging environments. So we can't know if those less severe universes are actually better.

 

 

 

My opinions have changed a fair amount since the start of the thread. I think a good way to consider this hypothetical situation is from the point of view of society. The process I go through (now) is considering the ethics of creating life, and weighing up the positives and negatives as rationally as I can.

 

In the following paragraph, society can be replaced by "a rational person" assuming that societies laws and ethics are similar or the same as a rational person. I'd assume that most people also support societies laws and ethics as well.

 

Society has various ethical considerations and laws about creation of life such as abortion and animal testing (transgenic and non-transgenic). I think the hypothetical consideration I presented is comparable to these, and would ask how society would judge an entity creating the universe. Consider the example of creating and breeding transgenic line of sod1 mice (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mice). In most societies there are fairly heavy regulations and restrictions on making and breeding/keeping transgenic lines such as sod1 mice, and creation of such lines has to be approved in order to be created (intention of use is considered, according to wiki). So, creation of the universe should be judged in the same way the decision to create such lines of transgenic animals are. This is where the intention of the creator is examined, but the intention is unknown so various possibilities can be considered.

 

What intention could society find acceptable to deem the creation of the universe acceptable? What intention's are unacceptable? would be important questions to ask

 

An inquiry into the intentions of the creator are needed in order to come to a conclusion in this hypothetical scenario. Shouldn't an approach similar to this be applied to the situation (assuming one is honest and rational). Wouldn't we also have to agree that the intention to create this universe for the purpose of scientific discovery to advance medicine is acceptable (assuming we are honest and won't contradict ourselves)?

 

I have no idea what various religions with a deity say about their god's/gods' intentions to creating this universe, and whether or not their god had a choice, and whether it created this universe to the best of it's ability. Would there be a difference of conclusion about the creator's decision from a religious view point when compared to societies/rational person point of view?

 

Do people agree with this process/reasoning to justify an opinion of the creator's decision (and then ultimately using that opinion on whether one can worship/admire/respect said creator)? If so, what intentions do people think are justifyable?

Edited November 28, 2012 by jp255

[rigney]

 

These are good questions. Whilst I did mention Utopia, I was using that as the best case scenario if one was to create a universe. We can't observe other universes with less harmful fitness landscapes (if they are possible) and/or less challenging environments. So we can't know if those less severe universes are actually better.

 

 

 

My opinions have changed a fair amount since the start of the thread. I think a good way to consider this hypothetical situation is from the point of view of society. The process I go through (now) is considering the ethics of creating life, and weighing up the positives and negatives as rationally as I can.

 

In the following paragraph, society can be replaced by "a rational person" assuming that societies laws and ethics are similar or the same as a rational person. I'd assume that most people also support societies laws and ethics as well.

 

Society has various ethical considerations and laws about creation of life such as abortion and animal testing (transgenic and non-transgenic). I think the hypothetical consideration I presented is comparable to these, and would ask how society would judge an entity creating the universe. Consider the example of creating and breeding transgenic line of sod1 mice (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mice). In most societies there are fairly heavy regulations and restrictions on making and breeding/keeping transgenic lines such as sod1 mice, and creation of such lines has to be approved in order to be created (intention of use is considered, according to wiki). So, creation of the universe should be judged in the same way the decision to create such lines of transgenic animals are. This is where the intention of the creator is examined, but the intention is unknown so various possibilities can be considered.

 

What intention could society find acceptable to deem the creation of the universe acceptable? What intention's are unacceptable? would be important questions to ask

 

An inquiry into the intentions of the creator are needed in order to come to a conclusion in this hypothetical scenario. Shouldn't an approach similar to this be applied to the situation (assuming one is honest and rational). Wouldn't we also have to agree that the intention to create this universe for the purpose of scientific discovery to advance medicine is acceptable (assuming we are honest and won't contradict ourselves)?

 

I have no idea what various religions with a deity say about their god's/gods' intentions to creating this universe, and whether or not their god had a choice, and whether it created this universe to the best of it's ability. Would there be a difference of conclusion about the creator's decision from a religious view point when compared to societies/rational person point of view?

 

Do people agree with this process/reasoning to justify an opinion of the creator's decision (and then ultimately using that opinion on whether one can worship/admire/respect said creator)? If so, what intentions do people think are justifyable?

It's hypocritial to worship something of which you haven't a clue. Theist's, God and Devil worshipers, plus the easily led of all types have made this mistake for millennia. If you need to worship something, why not simply say, "Since to my knowledge the Universe exists, I will worship it." I may be wrong, but my thoughts are that Aboriginie's the world over has always maintained this concept. It's only when "Do Gooders" write, document and demand that theirs is the only way to worship, do we get in trouble. If we actually knew, I think it's the inherent nature of all living things to worship something beyond their comprehention. As humans we top this chain regardless of how, who, or what we believe.

Edited December 5, 2012 by rigney