More or less pleasurable?

[DavidC]

If god exists, and he's omniscient, and he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...

...then would it be more pleasurable for him to observe Earth in a state of paradise or in its current state?

If it would be more pleasurable to observe earth in a state of paradise, and all the above statements are true, then...

...either God isn't omnipotent, or there's some reason that things are the way they are, rather than being in a state of paradise.

Please discuss.

Sorry for the unintelligible post earlier. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

(I do not believe in God)

A) You think God's primary concern is pleasure. I doubt this.
B) His primary concern is our free will. He could not change the Earth without sacrificing that.

[purnell]

Much better. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

If God is as described (essentially an omniscient human), then I suppose he would rather the Earth in a state of paradise.

[ QUOTE ]
...either God isn't omnipotent, or there's some reason that things are the way they are, rather than being in a state of paradise.

[/ QUOTE ]

...or God is apathetic, and there is no reason for anything.

This seems kind of disconnected, sorry. I'm not sure if I'm making sense here at all.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If god exists, and he's omniscient, and he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...

...then would it be more pleasurable for him to observe Earth in a state of paradise or in its current state?

If it would be more pleasurable to observe earth in a state of paradise, and all the above statements are true, then...

...either God isn't omnipotent, or there's some reason that things are the way they are, rather than being in a state of paradise.

Please discuss.

Sorry for the unintelligible post earlier. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it depend on gods purpose in creating us? maybe this mess is part of the plan

chez

[AdamL]

Two things immediately pop into mind, I'm sure Chesterton or Lewis would have MUCH more to say in answer to the question. The question is really the problem of pain.

The two things, very much linked, which came to mind:

1) The doctrine of the fall. (Which is a doctrine much deeper and more to be understood than simply humans can sin. See the aforementioned authors.)

2) Free will, our capacity to choose good or love, to worship freely, also gives us the capacity to do all the opposite things.

FWIW...

Adam

Edit -- one more thing. Our idea of what is pleasurable or comfortable may have nothing to do with producing the kind of beings meant for "distant shores"... but also there is the whole idea of non-dualism.

[KeysrSoze]

Free will is overrated. Show me someone who would renounce perfect bliss for individual struggle and I'll show you a masochist. Show me a god who would oblige and I'll show you a sadist.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
and he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...


[/ QUOTE ]

You can of course make this assumption if you want, but do you really think it will lead to any insightful results?

[ QUOTE ]
If it would be more pleasurable to observe earth in a state of paradise, and all the above statements are true, then...


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that instead of “he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...” you don’t instead mean, “he is compassionate in the same manner that I mistakenly believe I am”

[ QUOTE ]
...either God isn't omnipotent, or there's some reason that things are the way they are, rather than being in a state of paradise.

[/ QUOTE ]

“there's some reason that things are the way they are” <– My money’s on this option.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...


[/ QUOTE ]

You can of course make this assumption if you want, but do you really think it will lead to any insightful results?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... I don't know.

You start with some assumptions, then make some conclusions. Then look at the conclusions and look at the assumptions again to determine if they're all correct (this is a little easier than looking merely at the assumptions to determine if they're correct, sometimes). Eventually you have some sort of axiom system where all of your assumptions can be seen to be correct, from which all conclusions are based, or something like that, right?

So, I guess this is some sort of completely retarded step in that direction.

The process, as I've described it, is iterative, and thus, it may not initially yield meaningful results.

[DavidC]

Okay, I'm a little disappointed by the some of the responses.

Adam's suggestion to read some Lewis/Chesterton is good advice, though I have no idea what the hell he's saying in his "edit" section. If you could clarify that, that'd be sweet. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that instead of “he is compassionate in the same manner that humans are compassionate...” you don’t instead mean, “he is compassionate in the same manner that I mistakenly believe I am”


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

Uh... again, I am completely baffled by what you have said.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Edit: Okay, I think I get it. Your answer is "Yes." But you've refused to discuss it, as I requested. In that case, you may sod off.

[hashi92]

I think when God first created the world it was paradise. Rememeber adam and eve. I think he quickly got bored and planted the apple tree and gave life to the serpent. We as humans do this to. Wouldnt sim city be totally boring if u there were no natural disasters?