Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 11:34:16 GMT
and you had the ability to create a universe of your own, which would be fairly similar to the universe that we are inhabiting with the same amount of suffering, joy, torture, death, pain etc...
would you do it? Let's say that once you had started the universe, you would be powerless to step in to intervene against evil, or to prevent suffering. But you did know from the outset that you would not be able to produce a universe with significantly less conscious suffering than the one that you live in yourself.
Would you jump straight into it, believing that you were bestowing a gift upon the inhabitants of your universe and there was effectively no downside to your experiment? Or do you think that the project would be too ethically problematic due to the suffering that would be experienced by many of the inhabitants? Do you think that if we were capable of simulating such a universe with powerful computers capable of producing conscious simulated characters, that such an experiment could pass a university ethics committee?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 19, 2018 12:45:33 GMT
If I was God, I'd hope I was capable of better.
|
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 19, 2018 12:58:43 GMT
Yeah I just want it to look relaly cute.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2018 13:21:58 GMT
If I were powerless to stop evil, then I'm not sure what the ethical dilemma would be in starting the creation.
I guess if I were completely self-sufficient and the universe would be created primarily for me to just watch, I guess I could go ahead and create it although without much motivation.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 19, 2018 14:47:22 GMT
When Hell freezes over.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 19, 2018 14:56:18 GMT
For those that voted no, do you feel it would be morally acceptable to annihilate the universe right now, thus ending all suffering and consciousness in general?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 19, 2018 15:08:35 GMT
If I were powerless to stop evil, then I'm not sure what the ethical dilemma would be in starting the creation. I think the ethical dilemma (for most moral people) would be the intentional act of creating evil (or the conditions where evil, pain, suffering, and death are inevitable), while being powerless to stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2018 15:20:01 GMT
If I were powerless to stop evil, then I'm not sure what the ethical dilemma would be in starting the creation. I think the ethical dilemma (for most moral people) would be the intentional act of creating evil (or the conditions where evil, pain, suffering, and death are inevitable), while being powerless to stop it. That's not an ethical dilemma unless the OP is saying evil outweighs the good which I wouldn't say is happening even now and assuming there is no god at all. Even then, I'm not sure it would be my problem if the creation has free will. I as the creator wouldn't even be able to define evil for them. Maybe if the question is tied to whether it is ethical for people to have free will without guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 19, 2018 15:21:47 GMT
For those that voted no, do you feel it would be morally acceptable to annihilate the universe right now, thus ending all suffering and consciousness in general? If it could be assured that the innocent/moral people in it were guaranteed inclusion into a better universe without those things, then yeah! If it was just an annihilation where everyone and everything was just blinked out of existence, then no. Because that is no more ethical than creating it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 19, 2018 15:50:07 GMT
i'm almost positive that a god who creates playthings to watch them suffer has issues far beyond the issues of those men who created him in the first place.
throwing around gods is way more fun than having to do any sort of work. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 19, 2018 17:55:33 GMT
For those that voted no, do you feel it would be morally acceptable to annihilate the universe right now, thus ending all suffering and consciousness in general? If it could be assured that the innocent/moral people in it were guaranteed inclusion into a better universe without those things, then yeah! If it was just an annihilation where everyone and everything was just blinked out of existence, then no. Because that is no more ethical than creating it in the first place. I wonder though if Jim Jones thought that he and his flock were going onto a better place when they drank the Kool-Aid. I think the problem with a no vote is that it could be construed as giving tacit approval for someone like Kim Jong Un to take himself out along with the rest of the world if things don't go well for himself. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 19, 2018 18:26:59 GMT
and you had the ability to create a universe of your own, which would be fairly similar to the universe that we are inhabiting with the same amount of suffering, joy, torture, death, pain etc... would you do it? Let's say that once you had started the universe, you would be powerless to step in to intervene against evil, or to prevent suffering. But you did know from the outset that you would not be able to produce a universe with significantly less conscious suffering than the one that you live in yourself. Would you jump straight into it, believing that you were bestowing a gift upon the inhabitants of your universe and there was effectively no downside to your experiment? Or do you think that the project would be too ethically problematic due to the suffering that would be experienced by many of the inhabitants? Do you think that if we were capable of simulating such a universe with powerful computers capable of producing conscious simulated characters, that such an experiment could pass a university ethics committee? Sorry bro, but the premises of this argument is one of the main flaws of atheistic thinking. First of all, how in the world do you know that there weren't "worse" versions of the universe under consideration? We can talk about cancer, war etc now - but what if the original plan had 1000s times worse things, but were removed in order to balance out what we can stand, and what we couldn't? Also, the perception of human suffering is just that, perception. You remove the very worst thing about this universe from existence - and guess what - the thing second on your list becomes the worst thing, with just as much power. Because your mind adapts to what is the new limit. If you created a universe where you removed nearly all ills, and the worst thing about it was people getting paper-cuts - the inhabitants of that world would still ask you why you are a monster for creating so much pain and suffering. They wouldn't be able to conceptualize that you've spared them from much worse things, as those worse things do not exist st all in their version of the universe. Without context, they will still call you a sadistic bastard. Then it all spirals down into "well why have a world at all with any challenges of any sort, why not just have heaven from the beginning to end" - and that becomes a different topic to explore. But the notion that God is cruel because of our perception of how horrible the world is, (or God doesn't exist because if He did he wouldn't have created such a world) absolutely does not hold up. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 19, 2018 19:05:44 GMT
tpfkar Being limited is the only way a "god" could be remotely moral. As for simulations, anything goes without having any clue about creating consciousness or really even what it is.
a smile on a [dg]o[gd] |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 19, 2018 20:31:24 GMT
Yes. And I would demand people worship me or I would destroy them. Because that's what an loving God does.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2018 20:37:27 GMT
Yes. And I would demand people worship me or I would destroy them. Because that's what an loving God does. If we are relating this to Bible God, then the problem would be he didn't do this...If one is to consider that really the problem. However, the scenario is you would be the most powerful god with no power whatsoever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 20:51:21 GMT
Yes I would.
Given how the amount of pleasure joy in the universe appears to so comprehensively outweigh the amount of suffering, I wouldn't hesitate on that front at all.
Although if I'm god, I don't see why I'm disallowed from creating one with the joy but without the suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 19, 2018 20:52:42 GMT
Yes. And I would demand people worship me or I would destroy them. Because that's what an loving God does. If we are relating this to Bible God, then the problem would be he didn't do this...If one is to consider that really the problem. However, the scenario is you would be the most powerful god with no power whatsoever. "then the problem would be he didn't do this"
Dunno how you came to that conclusion when it's clearly in Bible:
John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:3: Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
Revelation 21:8: But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
2 Chronicles 15:12-13: And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
"However, the scenario is you would be the most powerful god with no power whatsoever."
Not really sure that even means.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 19, 2018 23:52:34 GMT
I am a conscientious objector to this poll and have not answered because fundamentally I don't believe this is a possible scenario. There is no God and the existence of the universe is natural and evolutionary. It just happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:04:09 GMT
If I was God, I'd hope I was capable of better. But suppose you had the computing power to set up a simulation of a universe with conscious inhabitants, but you knew that the best possible universe that could be programmed would be one in which the suffering/pleasure ratio was about the same as what we have in this universe at present, would you carry out the simulation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 0:05:37 GMT
I am a conscientious objector to this poll and have not answered because fundamentally I don't believe this is a possible scenario. There is no God and the existence of the universe is natural and evolutionary. It just happened. It may be possible to computationally simulate a universe with conscious inhabitants, and there are some who theorise that we, in fact, inhabit one of these computer simulations. I probably should have made it clearer in the OP that I was thinking of a computer simulation type of scenario. If it is possible, should it be done, or would it be too ethically problematic? |
|
