I would like to prove God...somehow!

From what I see here, you appear to be descending into madness. I mean that, literally. You have created a world in your imagination that bears no relationship to reality and populated it with some figment of your imagination that bears no resemblance to me, at all. Your inability to actually hear me, instead of Faux Lily, is sad but it is not my problem and I am not responsible for your emotional meltdowns. Talk about bitter! Take the lemon out of your mouth, sweetie. There are better ways to pucker up.

I feel neither hate nor resentment of anyone. Would that you could say the same.

Lily wrote

From what I see here, you appear to be descending into madness. I mean that, literally. You have created a world in your imagination that bears no relationship to reality

Sounds abit like Theism to me o.O

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

From what I see here, you appear to be descending into madness. I mean that, literally. You have created a world in your imagination that bears no relationship to reality and populated it with some figment of your imagination that bears no resemblance to me, at all. Your inability to actually hear me, instead of Faux Lily, is sad but it is not my problem and I am not responsible for your emotional meltdowns. Talk about bitter! Take the lemon out of your mouth, sweetie. There are better ways to pucker up.

I feel neither hate nor resentment of anyone. Would that you could say the same.

Liar.

Yeah, I said it.

You resent and, quite possibly, hate all those folks who feel free to live in a way that you never will be able to. It's sad, really. But you made your own prison, girlfriend. Don't get mad at other folks 'cause they won't join you in it.

You've called me a killer more than once. Do you think I am going to get upset over being called a liar?


I shouldn't laugh. In a very real way, this is the saddest thing you could possibly have written. I told you that you could not refrain from addressing me a week or so ago when I agreed to stop responding to you, if you did. You really are a prisoner of faux Lily. Real Lily has no particular interest in you.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

You are in la la land. You read to much science fiction, apparently. Why would an evil god allow you to deny him, if he can just program us? In any case, such a supposition completely redefines what it means to be human into something robotic and, thus, meaningless. Robots don't and cannot love.

Same thing with a good God. He can do anything He likes. What he liked was to create us in his image with brains and free will. It makes no sense to posit that he is not willing to do so. He has already done what he is willing to do.

I suppose it wouldn't do me any good to explain to you yet another way that a god can command love? Connect the neural pathways that activate when you are thinking of love to a god to the pleasure centers of your brain? This actually seems to be the reality as such since many people really do feel a sense of euphoria when praying to their god. However, not all of us seem to have this "gift", meaning god gives preference to a select group of people, independent of their actual morality. It also doesn't seem very specifically directed, since this euphoria can activate when thinking of any number of fake gods. So its possible to create a compulsion to love him, just as we have a compulsion to have sex, to eat food, etc. yet we still appear to have free will. This means that a god can command love even allowing for free will. He just places the positive incentives inside our brain.

Also, you point out Robotics. We may discover that robots think better when they have an illusion of free will and in fact there really is no distinction between the brain of a sufficiently advanced robot and a human being.

Consider this, Lily. If you took a hypothetical pill that removed all free will from you, but left your mind and body completely intact, would anyone be able to tell the difference? (This is the premise of a short story that you can find here. Someone blogged the entire classic book of philosophy Mind's I, if you want to go read it.)

Mog: I am dealing with reality not imaginary scenarios. Human beings are so constituted that we have brains, an emotional and imaginative life, the ability to make choices, and the ability to recognize good and evil (this is better developed in some of us than in others). For us to be "programmable" by a malevolent being, we would have to be changed from what we are into something else. (It is irrelevant that some mad scientist could come along, hit me over the head and subject me to all sorts of neurological torture and rewiring, until I adore him and call him papa. It might make a fun movie but it is useless for the discussion at hand.)

Moreover, such a god would be too small to be the creator of the universe; of all that is, seen and unseen. If her were the creator of the universe, why would he have created us, only to have to monkey around with our brains, in order to compel love?

The universe, necessarily, reflects God's, nature in some way, since he cannot be other than what he is. What he creates, shares in his being. We have a rather large share in his being; my cat rather less, the rocks in my yard, virtually none, but still, something. For us to be able to say of your "god" that he is evil makes a standard outside both humans and this god necessary. Otherwise "evil" is so much meaningless noise.

I do not see good and evil as meaningless. I see them very clearly. I do not praise nor love what is evil. I could be forced to acquiesce and "pretend" that I love this monster, I suppose. I could not be forced to love it, without dying and some obedient creature that doesn't know the difference between good and evil taking my place. That creature would not be human, as we have understood the term.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Mog: I am dealing with reality not imaginary scenarios.

Oh wait, you're serious aren't you?

Human beings are so constituted that we have brains, an emotional and imaginative life, the ability to make choices, and the ability to recognize good and evil (this is better developed in some of us than in others). For us to be "programmable" by a malevolent being, we would have to be changed from what we are into something else. (It is irrelevant that some mad scientist could come along, hit me over the head and subject me to all sorts of neurological torture and rewiring, until I adore him and call him papa. It might make a fun movie but it is useless for the discussion at hand.)

This is only speculation though. Like I said, if there really were gods, we really wouldn't know if we were being secretly manipulated or not.

Moreover, such a god would be too small to be the creator of the universe; of all that is, seen and unseen. The universe, necessarily, reflects God's, nature in some way, since he cannot be other than what he is. What he creates, shares in his being. We have a rather large share in his being; my cat rather less, the rocks in my yard, virtually none, but still, something. For us to be able to say of your "god" that he is evil makes a standard outside both humans and this god necessary. Otherwise "evil" is so much meaningless noise.

Au contrare, Lily. Your god is too small to be the creator of the universe. We have a rather large share in his being??? Are you consciously aware of how friggin' big the universe is? Lets get this straight here, Lily. If there truly was a god, he wouldn't have any interest whatsoever in having worshippers, willing or not, he wouldn't construct pocket universes involving us, and if intelligent life forms was his goal, lets face it, there'd be a lot more of them.

So in that, I agree. The god you worship is too small to be the creator of the universe. Many of us, like myself, state that he is in fact so small, that he's non-existent.

I do not see good and evil as meaningless. I see them very clearly. I do not praise or love what is evil. I could be forced to acquiesce and "pretend" that I love this monster, I suppose. I could not be forced to love it, without dying and some obedient creature that doesn't know the difference between good and evil taking my place. That creature would not be human, as we have understood the term.

Good and Evil are just tools we use to express strategies of living in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't understand the strategies, you can love what is evil. You choose not to understand the strategies.

Keep in mind that a good chunk of evil is done in the name of god. The people doing that evil, think they are doing good. They love their god, even though its leading them to commit evil. An evil god can command love.

Mog wrote

This is only speculation though. Like I said, if there really were gods, we really wouldn't know if we were being secretly manipulated or not.

Sure. I freely admit it. We could all be brains in a vat being manipulated by some mad alien creature.

Lets get this straight here, Lily. If there truly was a god, he wouldn't have any interest whatsoever in having worshippers, willing or not, he wouldn't construct pocket universes involving us, and if intelligent life forms was his goal, lets face it, there'd be a lot more of them.

How do you know? When did you and he last sit down and chat?

So in that, I agree. The god you worship is too small to be the creator of the universe. Many of us, like myself, state that he is in fact so small, that he's non-existent.

I guess that will tell me. And God!! I know that this argument just convinced me. And I see that God is scampering off with a dejected look on his face...

Good and Evil are just tools we use to express strategies of living in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't understand the strategies, you can love what is evil. You choose not to understand the strategies.

So I can kill you or rob you blind, eh? And if I go to prison all that has happened is that my strategy for living in the universe has failed me, eh?

I like it. Guilt-free living through science!

[calpurnpiso]

jamesusillxd wrote

...Money? o.O

....forgot..yes, believe and you shall receive...

[ghoulslime]

Lily wrote

From what I see here, you appear to be descending into madness. I mean that, literally. You have created a world in your imagination that bears no relationship to reality and populated it with some figment of your imagination that bears no resemblance to me, at all. Your inability to actually hear me, instead of Faux Lily, is sad but it is not my problem and I am not responsible for your emotional meltdowns. Talk about bitter! Take the lemon out of your mouth, sweetie. There are better ways to pucker up.

I feel neither hate nor resentment of anyone. Would that you could say the same.

Define delusion...

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Sure. I freely admit it. We could all be brains in a vat being manipulated by some mad alien creature.

We probably aren't, but a god isn't a real solution either.

How do you know? When did you and he last sit down and chat?

For all I know, it was the last time I had a conversation with myself. That's just it. If gods exist, then we don't know when we are talking to gods or just ourselves.

I guess that will tell me. And God!! I know that this argument just convinced me. And I see that God is scampering off with a dejected look on his face...

So your god is small enough to feel embarrassment at my arguments, then?

So I can kill you or rob you blind, eh? And if I go to prison all that has happened is that my strategy for living in the universe has failed me, eh?

I like it. Guilt-free living through science!

Except, that you are programmed by your genes not to act this way, to be at least reasonably altruistic. Most people wouldn't really want to associate with such a hard-boiled killer either, so those genes that made you such have a better than average chance of not getting carried on to your offspring, who you of course would lack the loving feeling for that a not so hard-boiled killer would.

Of course, natural selection doesn't weed out all bad traits. You still have a chance to find a mate that loves hanging out with immoral jerks, and its even possible to have a parasitic subsociety that preys on us, which is why we still have a prison system.

Lily, we still have guilt, we just recognize that its a result of genetics, not from the belief in a sky-daddy. The only way we'd have guilt-free living is if we lack the capacity for guilt, or if we override the guilt by using some other rationalization (such as your god wanted you to do it, for example). Then, and only then, must we depend on logic to persuade people not to be cold-blooded killers.


Lily, lets have a little thought test.

Lets say I was a robot who was programmed to worship god and to think I have free will. There is no evidence of my real programmer. How do you convince me that I don't have free will?

You can ask me why I worship god. I would probably state that I love worshipping god.

You could tell me that I was free to stop. I would say, "I know that, but worshipping god is so enjoyable to me. Why should I stop?"

You could explain to me how god was evil. I would say, "Why would an evil god command such love?" and so on.

I would be stuck in my programming, but the rationalizations would be identical to if I was someone doing all this stuff of my free will.

The cards are stacked against the robot from the getgo, aren't they? But, since it is not human, who cares?

Interestingly, the robot would, indeed, be correct that there is something out there that is greater than it. So its problem is not that it is wrong; the problem is that it doesn't have the complete picture.

If a robot can love at all, it will love whatever it is programmed to love. That love has no value, of course, since it is offered by something that cannot freely choose to love but must be programmed to offer some sort of semblance of it. What is the problem with allowing it to go its way and "love" whatever it has been programmed to? It cannot wish to do so; it can only do what it was programmed to do. If you want it to stop, why waste time arguing with it? Just change the programming!

This, by the way, is a perfect metaphor for all you "scientific geniuses" who think you can play God and create a more perfect human animal. With you in charge of the farm, of course. Well, I think not. I really think not.

I am unimpressed with these pill-popping dualists and (mis)programmed robots, that some of you are so enamoured of. At some point, don't you see anything a trifle reductionist about it all?

Why can't robots learn, or generate their own software for any given task with an evolutionary algorithm? Why would creating a robot sense of love be any more difficult to a sufficiently advanced robot than crunching a shitload of numbers? What would stop a robot that emulates a human nervous system and sense organs from experiencing human emotions, other than perhaps an initial lack of cultural experience in some cases? Why do you seem to have a similar level of understanding of robotics to a creationist, when you're supposedly one of the more intelligent, respectable theist types? And why can't you see the analogy between the software that indirectly controls a robot and the genes that indirectly control your body? Do you really, honestly believe the human body and mind is beyond improvement?

How would the demonstration of such technology affect any given religion? It wouldn't do it much good, I would bet.

Lily wrote

You've called me a killer more than once. Do you think I am going to get upset over being called a liar?


I shouldn't laugh. In a very real way, this is the saddest thing you could possibly have written. I told you that you could not refrain from addressing me a week or so ago when I agreed to stop responding to you, if you did. You really are a prisoner of faux Lily. Real Lily has no particular interest in you.

Dem's shure a lot of werds fer someone wut don't care.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

The cards are stacked against the robot from the getgo, aren't they? But, since it is not human, who cares?

Its a metaphorical example, Lily. I thought you liked metaphors. I guess you only like metaphors when they argue your point of view.

Interestingly, the robot would, indeed, be correct that there is something out there that is greater than it. So its problem is not that it is wrong; the problem is that it doesn't have the complete picture.

Nope.

If a robot can love at all, it will love whatever it is programmed to love.

Our love is at least partially, based on chemicals in our system and how they affect the neurons in our brain, so how we actually love may in fact be indistinguishable from a robot's love.

That love has no value, of course, since it is offered by something that cannot freely choose to love but must be programmed to offer some sort of semblance of it.

However, the robot doesn't know this, and thinks its love is free will, just as you think your love is free will.

What is the problem with allowing it to go its way and "love" whatever it has been programmed to?

You'd have to ask its programmer. Maybe he doesn't want the robot to go to robot hell?

It cannot wish to do so; it can only do what it was programmed to do. If you want it to stop, why waste time arguing with it? Just change the programming!

The creator of this robot made it tamper proof. So the only one to change the programming is its creator, who may or may not be god!

This, by the way, is a perfect metaphor for all you "scientific geniuses" who think you can play God and create a more perfect human animal. With you in charge of the farm, of course. Well, I think not. I really think not.

Its a perfect metaphor alright. You just happen not to be taking this perfect metaphor all the way to its logical conclusion. (which is also mentioned in that mind's I blog.) It doesn't just necessarily mean that only scientists shouldn't play god, it also means that god shouldn't play god! oh, and I probably won't be in charge of the farm, unless I could improve myself as well. There's nothing that states that we can't create things greater than ourselves. In fact, we only create things when we can benefit from them somehow. That makes your idea of god even more absurd. Thats why I have stated that if I was god, I'd create other gods. That's the only way a god can benefit from creating things.

I am unimpressed with these pill-popping dualists and (mis)programmed robots, that some of you are so enamoured of. At some point, don't you see anything a trifle reductionist about it all?

Sure I do, don't you see anything ridiculously holistic about your beliefs?

You need to stick to your test tubes. You have no obvious talent for literature or philosophy.

But do tell me. If we create something greater than ourselves, why would it allow us murderous lesser beings to run around and pollute the planet? Let's just hope it believes in gentle, mercy killing. I don't want to be confined to a ghetto with all the other animals.

You, of course, might be pacified by your blow up doll. I am sure your robot masters could give you the right chemical stimulants to feel love for her. Why, you will be a veritable Romeo with your faux Juliet!