God can make infinitely more special/valuable things than this universe

[GrandizerII]

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Let me put it another way. 

Do you find this syllogism sound?

~ If there were a good God, X, Y, and Z would happen.
~ X, Y, and Z don't happen.
~ Therefore, there isn't a good God.

We could still make a reasonable moral judgement based on our intuitions and experiences whether something is likely to be created/allowed by a good God or not. For example, most suffering is not what we intuit to be good, and our experiences tell us that it's not good. Even less so when this suffering is perceived by us to be gratuitous (unwarranted given a good God), such as rape and torture.

We need not be omniscient in order to conduct a proper Bayesian analysis of the situation under debate. We just need to be reasonable and intellectually honest, even if we could still be mistaken ultimately.

[Belacqua]

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Let me put it another way. 

Do you find this syllogism sound?

~ If there were a good God, X, Y, and Z would happen.
~ X, Y, and Z don't happen.
~ Therefore, there isn't a good God.

We could still make a reasonable moral judgement based on our intuitions and experiences whether something is likely to be created/allowed by a good God or not. For example, most suffering is not what we intuit to be good, and our experiences tell us that it's not good. Even less so when this suffering is perceived by us to be gratuitous (unwarranted given a good God), such as rape and torture.

We need not be omniscient in order to conduct a proper Bayesian analysis of the situation under debate. We just need to be reasonable and intellectually honest, even if we could still be mistaken ultimately.

I guess what I've been thinking lately is that all of these analyses will be according to our own human-based judgments. And that is absolutely how it should be: such decisions are based on whether things contribute to or deny human flourishing. 

The thing to keep in mind though is that if there actually were an omniscient and good God, it would be so vastly beyond our understanding that it would be impossible for us to judge. There could easily be huge swathes of reasons that we just have no way of knowing. Our conception of even the meaning of the word "good" is oriented to ourselves and those like us. Our minds are so limited -- there could be reasons for what we call suffering that we have no way of knowing.

I've been reading Simone Weil lately, and she has an elaborate way of thinking about what she calls affliction, and why a good God would be likely to let such things happen. She considers much affliction to be a positive, while also feeling an absolute duty to undo as much of other people's as possible. I don't quite grasp this yet, but I do find her skepticism about the human ego to be persuasive. We are understandably really full of ourselves and this makes things that are far vaster than us seem unreal. 

An example that's a little easier for me: when people make an argument that a lot of wasted time and space went into making a universe if God thinks that people are important, it reveals a pre-judgment about what waste consists of. As if a smart God would have got people up and running sooner, and made the universe all a nice usable space for us to get around in. And this means that utility is the criterion we are judging by. And this reveals our prejudice. We think that a good God would have done things with more utility for us. Yet many of the most interesting theologians write instead about the autotelic nature of the Good. Using things is not necessarily what they are for or what we are for. 

I really like living in the middle of my garden, which is big by Japanese domestic standards. Most people here consider it a waste of space, as they would put in parking or even knock down my house and put up three rental units. But I find the garden to be a pleasure in itself. So maybe all that vast space in the universe that people can't use is there because it's good in itself, or just because it's beautiful, or because people deserve to have such an enormous set of puzzles to keep our minds full of the pleasures of discovery. Judging that our tiny place in the universe means we're unimportant is, it seems to me, an application of criteria that might not be best here. And suffering might be something similar. 

I am not any way making an argument for suffering. It is important that we not find a way to excuse ourselves for tolerating other people's. What I'm interested in is the thought experiment-like nature of imagining what values and purposes would be like if our egos and habits didn't jump to so many conclusions. 

But I am not claiming this as proof of anything, or urging anybody else to ponder it.

[tackattack]

Bel

She considers much affliction to be a positive, while also feeling an absolute duty to undo as much of other people's as possible. I don't quite grasp this yet,

A much simpler explanation would be a parent punishing a child. The parent sees it as loving while the child considers it painful until they grow up and reach the understanding that it was for their good. While other parents in walmart give dirty looks at you punishing your children in public.

I make a simple point; if the theist doesn't take this universe's creation to be the end of God's supposedly unending power, then the theist ought to expect that God would have created far better things, in whatever ways God would decide to select.

If God could create infinitely more things of intrinsically more value, and God created us, then aren't we of intrinsically infinite value? Or at the very least do we have intrinsic value is God created us?

[Brian37]

Bel

She considers much affliction to be a positive, while also feeling an absolute duty to undo as much of other people's as possible. I don't quite grasp this yet,

A much simpler explanation would be a parent punishing a child. The parent sees it as loving while the child considers it painful until they grow up and reach the understanding that it was for their good. While other parents in walmart give dirty looks at you punishing your children in public.

I make a simple point; if the theist doesn't take this universe's creation to be the end of God's supposedly unending power, then the theist ought to expect that God would have created far better things, in whatever ways God would decide to select.

If God could create infinitely more things of intrinsically more value, and God created us, then aren't we of intrinsically infinite value? Or at the very least do we have intrinsic value is God created us?

A shitload gigantic "what if" in that last sentence. 

Why do you insist on assigning value to the super natural? Do you think atheists are incapable of valuing anything? 

Hate to burst your bubble, but we are capable of compassion, and non violence, and love, and we have family and friends too. What you assign to fictional beings, we assign to nature without old mythology or superstition.

[blue grey brain]

Bel

She considers much affliction to be a positive, while also feeling an absolute duty to undo as much of other people's as possible. I don't quite grasp this yet,

A much simpler explanation would be a parent punishing a child. The parent sees it as loving while the child considers it painful until they grow up and reach the understanding that it was for their good. While other parents in walmart give dirty looks at you punishing your children in public.

I make a simple point; if the theist doesn't take this universe's creation to be the end of God's supposedly unending power, then the theist ought to expect that God would have created far better things, in whatever ways God would decide to select.

If God could create infinitely more things of intrinsically more value, and God created us, then aren't we of intrinsically infinite value? Or at the very least do we have intrinsic value is God created us?

Whatever our value is in the religious regime, it would contrast omnipotence's definition to presume that this universe's creation represented the end of the supposedly omnipotent force's unending power.

[tackattack]

---

A shitload gigantic "what if" in that last sentence. 

Why do you insist on assigning value to the super natural? Do you think atheists are incapable of valuing anything? 

Hate to burst your bubble, but we are capable of compassion, and non violence, and love, and we have family and friends too. What you assign to fictional beings, we assign to nature without old mythology or superstition.

---

I never claimed that were true brian, and I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting me. People can be those things regardless of their religious belief. I was responding to the question of the OP. In that, if God can create X, but he created Y, then Y must have value if it’s creation was intentional.

To answer your question I previously ascribed a definition to supernatural. I do however ascribe a value to the supernatural because I believe the supernatural exists and has usefulness

[Drich]

1. If God is supposedly all powerful, with the ability to create supposedly infinitely far more special things than universes (all while being enormously effortless for God to supposedly do), why do Christians feel themselves or the universe to be so special?

2. Why do Christians feel they or the universe is so special, despite that God would have supposedly easily created infinitely more valuable, infinitely more special things than this universe, within his supposed omnipotency?

3. Note: This universe is by far, theistically describable as not the best God could create, and in theistic theory, God would have in his supposed omnipotency, created far better, far more valuable things.

4. Or is the famed theistic supposedly omnipotent God, ironically limited to creations of merely the level of the specialness or value of this universe?


In simpler words, if we go by the definition of omnipotence, this would indicate that this universe's creation is not the end of God's supposedly unending power.

brain doodles.. kinda like thoughts you think on hold/while waiting. that is what I like to call questions like this.

1 if God is all powerful and can create any thing why hold what was created as special. We were tasked to do so. we were told to go into the world multiply fill it break it/harness it uses it's resources and power.

2 Why do christian feel special despite hat God could have done. well one none of use should feel as if we are 'christian'/Complete picture of holiness, but see ourselves as followers of Christ. That should answer that. in that Christ died for us or his followers to be free from sin despite what God have put in our place.

In essence God decided to fix what was wrong with us rather than create something perfect.

3. value is subjective. we place value or give thing's value. example Street of God pearl and gem encrusted gates mansions for everyone to live in.. does this sound like lavish opulence to you? if so you'd be wrong. God is describing Heaven as a place so... beyond value, that it's base foundations it's base construction are of the things we hold most dear.  then things we kill and covet the most (gold jewels and pearls) are as common as the cobble stones in the streets of rome. So because our most valued items are cast out to line the streets (like salt that looses it flavor/what other purpose will it serve other than to be cast under foot) means our hold system of what is valuable and what is not is or will be made meaningless! Again you do not put up gates and wall made of things of value you put up walls and gate to protect things of value. so by lining the gates with pearl and gems means what is inside is of far greater value.

Now ask yourself what will heaven contain... So To God that is where he places value. not in the things man regards as valuable. which is why heaven's common place building material is what we consider to be of great value to us.

for you to say why didn't God make things of more value is like saying why didn't God create the world with more water in it when standing in the desert or why didn't God create more land while in a raft out to sea.. Your value or what you want/need is not a good scale to judge creation by as your exposure any any Given time is so limited you can not judge honestly what is and is not of value.. Rather if you contend that you are a fair judge of what s valuible then know God did not make the world to suit your values and that is why you do not see value in what he has done.

4. this is the question that reduces everything else to a mind fart...
You are asking why doesn't God create something more valuable that what the universe currently contains... This is ad hoc reasoning. because let's say the universe does everything can think of and an infinitum of more possibilities, but you being finite in a fix point in time and space can only ever examine maybe .01% of what is valuable. is it God's fault or doing that you mistake the .01% of the universe as being the whole universe?

Your argument is from ignorance, in the you think... we know and have cataloged everything when in fact we know we only have a tenth of a % of an understanding of how everything in the universe works.

The question here should not be why did create more, but how much can we see? And even then... see answer number 3.. "value" is subjective and based on individual worth.'

[Crossless2.0]

4. this is the question that reduces everything else to a mind fart...
You are asking why doesn't God create something more valuable that what the universe currently contains... This is ad hoc reasoning. because let's say the universe does everything can think of and an infinitum of more possibilities, but you being finite in a fix point in time and space can only ever examine maybe .01% of what is valuable. is it God's fault or doing that you mistake the .01% of the universe as being the whole universe?

Your argument is from ignorance, in the you think... we know and have cataloged everything when in fact we know we only have a tenth of a % of an understanding of how everything in the universe works.

The question here should not be why did create more, but how much can we see? And even then... see answer number 3.. "value" is subjective and based on individual worth.'

So my Big Rock Candy Mountains dream is still in the cards? Sweet . . .

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=big...&FORM=VIRE

[blue grey brain]

...

4. this is the question that reduces everything else to a mind fart...
You are asking why doesn't God create something more valuable that what the universe currently contains... This is ad hoc reasoning. because let's say the universe does everything can think of and an infinitum of more possibilities, but you being finite in a fix point in time and space can only ever examine maybe .01% of what is valuable. is it God's fault or doing that you mistake the .01% of the universe as being the whole universe?

Your argument is from ignorance, in the you think... we know and have cataloged everything when in fact we know we only have a tenth of a % of an understanding of how everything in the universe works.

The question here should not be why did create more, but how much can we see? And even then... see answer number 3.. "value" is subjective and based on individual worth.'

That's not the question the OP asked. 

Instead, if we grant the supposition that some existent God is omnipotent, then said God would have already created infinitely better things.

• In other words: Do you think this universe's creation, represents the end of God's supposedly unending power? Are universes the "best" or "greatest" things that the supposed God would have already created? ....and why would there be a "best" or "greatest" measure, for a supposedly omnipotent God that shouldn't have any "best" or "greatest" measurement of performance?
  

Based on the consequence of the supposed existence of an omnipotent force, it's extremely reasonable to conclude that theists may be far, in fact infinitely far less special than what they would have hoped for.

[Jehanne]

---

A shitload gigantic "what if" in that last sentence. 

Why do you insist on assigning value to the super natural? Do you think atheists are incapable of valuing anything? 

Hate to burst your bubble, but we are capable of compassion, and non violence, and love, and we have family and friends too. What you assign to fictional beings, we assign to nature without old mythology or superstition.

---

I never claimed that were true brian, and I believe you are intentionally misrepresenting me. People can be those things regardless of their religious belief. I was responding to the question of the OP. In that, if God can create X, but he created Y, then Y must have value if it’s creation was intentional.

To answer your question I previously ascribed a definition to supernatural. I do however ascribe a value to the supernatural because I believe the supernatural exists and has usefulness

Did God cause the K/T event, or, did He just allow it to happen?  And, if so, why?