God exists and is a terrible and hateful being, or God does not exist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Letting one person die to save thousands is more ethical than letting thousands die by pretty much any ethical system. Obviously if there were another option that would be better.

The problem is, God could save everyone and let no one die. Which is obviously, more ethical.

What would you think of a person who created the cure for cancer and kept it to himself, just because they wanted to see if the rest of the world could figure it out without him.

What if it was your son or daughter dying in front of you, and you KNEW he had the cure but wouldn't share it? Would it be ok, since it will make other doctors work harder to figure out a cure that already exists?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
God isn't letting one girl die to spur others to new heights. He is the author of this situation and is therefore killing the girl to encourage/save others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The little girl isn't the innocent victim here, she is the fat man being used to save others.

The ethical solution to the trolley problem is killing the one guy.

But because the situation is presumably manufactured by God in the first place the "kill one to save ten" concept doesn't apply properly since he would presumably have been able to make a situation where it didn't happen. So God would be either an inattentive conductor or a malicious crazy person. Or, I suppose, just the guy who owns the trolley.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
Who said I'm atheist? Why does it matter?

Me.

Because.

Originally posted by grimify
The problem is, God could save everyone and let no one die. Which is obviously, more ethical.

What would you think of a person who created the cure for cancer and kept it to himself, just because they wanted to see if the rest of the world could figure it out without him.

What if it was your son or daughter dying in front of you, and you KNEW he had the cure but wouldn't share it? Would it be ok, since it will make other doctors work harder to figure out a cure that already exists?

Second sentence covers that, but doesn't change the fact that killing one person to save many is a more ethical act than letting the many die. I'd also point out that taking free will from everyone would be even less ethical (from most standpoints) and the only way to keep everything perfect.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Second sentence covers that, but doesn't change the fact that killing one person to save many is a more ethical act than letting the many die. I'd also point out that taking free will from everyone would be even less ethical (from most standpoints) and the only way to keep everything perfect.

It doesn't cover that, because there is a second option. God could cure cancer with a thought.

Why is free will more important than billions of lives? It seems to be in direct contrast to your previous argument. A smaller sacrifice for a larger good. If mankind wasn't free to do evil, there would be no pain and suffering.

Originally posted by grimify
It doesn't cover that, because there is a second option. God could cure cancer with a thought.

Well, third option. But yes, that's exactly what it suggests. Any argument that God is making the moral choices would have to posit that either cancer/disease/evil can't be gotten rid of or there is a net benefit to humanity (or even the universe as a whole) when it exists.

Originally posted by grimify
Why is free will more important than billions of lives? It seems to be in direct contrast to your previous argument. A smaller sacrifice for a larger good. If mankind wasn't free to do evil, there would be no pain and suffering.

You're hardly alive without the ability to make choices, good or bad. Sacrificing everyone wouldn't be the ethical choice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, third option. But yes, that's exactly what it suggests. Any argument that God is making the moral choices would have to posit that either cancer/disease/evil can't be gotten rid of or there is a net benefit to humanity (or even the universe as a whole) when it exists.

So avoiding death and pain isn't a net benefit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

You're hardly alive without the ability to make choices, good or bad. Sacrificing everyone wouldn't be the ethical choice.

Mankind doesn't have true free will to begin with. We make our choices based on outside events that happen completely by chance. No one who has led a moral life suddenly wakes up one morning and decides to go on a killing spree. There is always outside stimuli acting on the choice.

What would God's perfect universe be like if there was no pain and death? There's no cancer, no disease (no doctors?) How would, say, an ordinary joe spend his typical day?

They'd be no ordinary joes probably.

Originally posted by grimify
Mankind doesn't have true free will to begin with. We make our choices based on outside events that happen completely by chance. No one who has led a moral life suddenly wakes up one morning and decides to go on a killing spree. There is always outside stimuli acting on the choice.

There are plenty of people who've lead moral lives and have lead mass suicides or gone on killing sprees. 🙁

Said to be all round good guys by people who knew them.

Originally posted by Mindship
What would God's perfect universe be like if there was no pain and death? There's no cancer, no disease (no doctors?) How would, say, an ordinary joe spend his typical day?

How about enjoying the company of his friends and family, and living a life without stress or worry. You're basically saying we need death, pain, and suffering...so people can have entertainment.

Originally posted by Allankles
There are plenty of people who've lead moral lives and have lead mass suicides or gone on killing sprees. 🙁

Said to be all round good guys by people who knew them.

Not the point, there is ALWAYS an outside stimulus that spurs that choice. People make their choices based on events that happen completely by chance. Depression, tragic events, mental disease, economic hardship, whatever drove people to commit a crime, there is ALWAYS a reason. People don't choose to commit crimes for the sake of choosing. Friends and neighbors thinking someone is a "good person" is irrelevant.

If you're a christian, chances are your family is christian, and you were raised christian. You were taught these things, by chance, because you were born into a household with parents who were taught the same as children.

Sure, people reject their families religions, because of some other event, or series of events, that happened, by chance.

Originally posted by grimify
How about enjoying the company of his friends and family, and living a life without stress or worry.

You're basically saying we need death, pain, and suffering...so people can have entertainment.

Originally posted by Mindship
Would he not be able to enjoy the company of everyone? Why would only some be 'friends' (those not picked: would their feelings be hurt?) How would he recognize enjoyment? And would this be an immortal life? Space is limited; how do we protect the rights of the yet-to-be-born? Do we stop reproducing? Etc.

I'd boil it down to this: pain and suffering exist because death exists. Death is change. Change is why things exist.

If you believe in heaven, then all of these same questions apply to you. Hurt feelings, space being limited, no more people being allowed in. By arguing against the viability of such a scenario, you are arguing against god's existence.

Originally posted by KidRock
I see those as being the only 2 options. Which one is true, I don't know. But I definitley know that with the world we live in it's impossible for God to be a good, merciful and caring entity.

Oh, that is not the case at all. We're just too stupid to know what to do with free will.

Originally posted by grimify
If you believe in heaven, then all of these same questions apply to you. Hurt feelings, space being limited, no more people being allowed in. By arguing against the viability of such a scenario, you are arguing against god's existence.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not arguing against the scenario; I'm just pointing out what was wrong with your answer, as well as how you avoided answering my questions about your answer.

I didn't avoid anything, it's a valid point. Unless you think god is incapable of creating such a place. I don't have to answer any of your questions except to say it's a description of heaven.

Unless you're saying god can't create this place, you have no argument.

Originally posted by grimify
I don't have to answer any of your questions

Originally posted by Mindship
I rest my case. Have a good evening.

In other words, you have no response except to request that I explain how god would make heaven, when you yourself argue that it can't exist.

Typical christian. 🙂

Originally posted by grimify
Typical christian. 🙂

First of all, with regard to "Heaven": I seriously doubt such a Norman Rockwell otherworld exists. Therefore, the questions I asked regarding your answer to my initial question do not "apply" to me. That I don't believe in such a Heaven (where one enjoys the company of friends and family and so on) is also why I did not consider your point valid because it was based on that comparison.

That said, the point of my initial question ("What would God's perfect universe be like?"😉 was simply this: it was an intellectual exercise that I was hoping would remind us of how easy it is to criticize someone else's handiwork, especially when no viable alternatives are offered -- or in this case, could even be offered. Finite creatures are in no position to say how an infinite being could've done a better job (typically, we end up projecting wish fulfillment). It is therefore incredibly arrogant (as well as short-sighted) of us to make judgments about what God has done or why. I think it is much more fair to either conclude "He" doesn't exist, or conclude that His reasons are beyond human ken, and that the best we mortals can do is accept them as "perfect." 😉

Originally posted by Mindship
🙂 I'm not Christian, nor have I ever been. However, your assumption has definitely merited another response.

First of all, with regard to "Heaven": I seriously doubt such a Norman Rockwell otherworld exists. Therefore, the questions I asked regarding your answer to my initial question do not "apply" to me. That I don't believe in such a Heaven (where one enjoys the company of friends and family and so on) is also why I did not consider your point valid because it was based on that comparison.

That said, the point of my initial question ("What would God's perfect universe be like?"😉 was simply this: it was an intellectual exercise that I was hoping would remind us of how easy it is to criticize someone else's handiwork, especially when no viable alternatives are offered -- or in this case, could even be offered. Finite creatures are in no position to say how an infinite being could've done a better job (typically, we end up projecting wish fulfillment). It is therefore incredibly arrogant (as well as short-sighted) of us to make judgments about what God has done or why. I think it is much more fair to either conclude "He" doesn't exist, or conclude that His reasons are beyond human ken, and that the best we mortals can do is accept them as "perfect." 😉

You're trying to criticize a human's (and one that doesn't even take the question seriously, because it's irrelevant) "handiwork". To say it couldn't exist is to say that God could not do it. You aren't getting away with anything by trying to claim it all makes sense, and mortals just can't see it. It's a tired argument.

What do you believe, exactly. Is there an afterlife? If there's no afterlife, then what consesquences exist for criminals? What is the reward for living a moral life and sacrificing anything for this God?

Originally posted by grimify
You're trying to criticize a human's (and one that doesn't even take the question seriously, because it's irrelevant) "handiwork".

To say it couldn't exist is to say that God could not do it. You aren't getting away with anything by trying to claim it all makes sense, and mortals just can't see it. It's a tired argument.

You are really saying God exists, and it's simply too hard for this being to solve worldly problems.

😮‍💨