Thought experiment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silent Bob

Silent Bob

I've been thinking about the nature and existence of God recently (ie arguing with my uber Christian friend), and came up with a cool little thought experiment.

God is essentially bigger than the universe. I think no religious person could argue against that statement. He created it. He's got to be bigger. Period.

http://htwins.net/scale2/

Check out the scale of the universe. To God we are essentially at the Plank length level. I asked my friend if he thinks about the particles at the quantum scale. Pretend they have personalities. Pretend a string has a string family. Are you overly concerned about the fate of that string? Or the entire population of strings that exists in a square millimeter of your pinky nail (hundreds of billions of strings)?

My question to him was whether or not God gave two craps about humanity on a remote planet the size of a neutrino relative to God? Moreover, would he really care enough to damn people who didn't believe in him to an eternity of suffering for finite sins? I don't think so. I think we're so insignificant to the grand scheme of things that our individual deaths have no consequence to worry about.

Of course my friend had circle logic, canned answers to come back with, but the epiphany I had with my analogy made my own stance the more clearer to myself. Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?

I thought I'd share that.
 
bhamv3

bhamv3

Silent Bob said:
Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?
Click to expand...
I'm not religious, but I the most convenient answer to this would be "because he can." "Because it's interesting" and "for the lulz" are also possible.

Also, if God really is omniscent and omnipotent, then it doesn't matter how relatively small we are, he can still detect and interact with us. We can't see neutrinos, but that's because our senses are limited. God's aren't meant to be.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Silent Bob said:
I've been thinking about the nature and existence of God recently (ie arguing with my uber Christian friend), and came up with a cool little thought experiment.

God is essentially bigger than the universe. I think no religious person could argue against that statement. He created it. He's got to be bigger. Period.

http://htwins.net/scale2/

Check out the scale of the universe. To God we are essentially at the Plank length level. I asked my friend if he thinks about the particles at the quantum scale. Pretend they have personalities. Pretend a string has a string family. Are you overly concerned about the fate of that string? Or the entire population of strings that exists in a square millimeter of your pinky nail (hundreds of billions of strings)?

My question to him was whether or not God gave two craps about humanity on a remote planet the size of a neutrino relative to God? Moreover, would he really care enough to damn people who didn't believe in him to an eternity of suffering for finite sins? I don't think so. I think we're so insignificant to the grand scheme of things that our individual deaths have no consequence to worry about.

Of course my friend had circle logic, canned answers to come back with, but the epiphany I had with my analogy made my own stance the more clearer to myself. Why would God give a crap about his insignificant creation?

I thought I'd share that.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting thought experiment, but fundamentally flawed. A creator doesn't have to be larger than their creation. That aside, one could say it's flawed to humanize the concept of God by assuming such a being or force would think, feel, or perceive in the same way that we do.

Of course, I'm an atheist, so what the hell do I know.
 
Timmus

Timmus

Yeah I think if there's a god it's perfectly capable of existing at whatever scale it wants. And there's nothing stopping it from being mean and petty cause it's all powerful. Nothing to stop it from being super nice either. My $.02 on the existence of god: probably not.
 
Espy

Espy

I'm not sure assigning size to a spiritual/supernatural being is the swiftest way to get to Deism but if thats what get you there rock on I guess?
 
drifter

drifter

Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?

Anyway, given the amount of time, energy, and money people spend on particle physics, not sure this is the best analogy to use. I mean, if you went up to a physicist and asked them "hey, if it were possible to study matter at the Planck level, would you be interested?" what do you think s/he would say?
 
Terrik

Terrik

As has been said, the thought experiment is flawed because the premise itself is flawed.

If we're going to suppose the God was the creator of the universe, why do we have to give him the same properties of His creation?

Concepts and questions like, "When did God come into being?" and "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" are meaningless because they all rely on the fact that God would be constrained to the same laws of physics as the rest of us---a silly thought if you consider such things wouldn't have existed if He hadn't created them in the first place.
 
Timmus

Timmus

Terrik said:
As has been said, the thought experiment is flawed because the premise itself is flawed.

If we're going to suppose the God was the creator of the universe, why do we have to give him the same properties of His creation?

Concepts and questions like, "When did God come into being?" and "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" are meaningless because they all rely on the fact that God would be constrained to the same laws of physics as the rest of us---a silly thought if you consider such things wouldn't have existed if He hadn't created them in the first place.
Click to expand...
But he's like really big and stuff man!
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

A better thought experiment is this.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
 
Covar

Covar

Bowielee said:
A better thought experiment is this.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
Click to expand...
To allow for philosophical paradox questions like this one.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

Bowielee said:
A better thought experiment is this.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
Click to expand...
"Can't" and "doesn't" are two very different things, you shouldn't get them confused.
 
Terrik

Terrik

Bowielee said:
A better thought experiment is this.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
Click to expand...
On the flip side, he'd also be responsible for all the good actions done by humans as well.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

I personally prefer the classic questions, like Epicurus's question on the problem of evil. Of course, this deals more with the idea of a Christian God, and supposes that things like evil are both identifiable forces and against a divine plan.

Epicurus said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Click to expand...
 
David

David

One more geared toward the evolution/creationist debate: "If life is too complex to have come about on it's own, where did the creator of said life come from? Wouldn't the creator have to be at least as if not more complex than what it created? Who created the creator? Why is it our complex form of life can't come into existence naturally if the creator can?"
 
Shakey

Shakey

Bowielee said:
If free will can be overridden, it's not free will.
Click to expand...
It is until it is actually overridden. The idea is that God steers us in a path, but ultimately we make the decision as to what we will do. Just because He can force us to do something, doesn't mean He will or wants to.
 
tegid

tegid

Bowielee said:
If free will can be overridden, it's not free will.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that, for instance, when one is not in prison they don't have even some measure of freedom because the possibility of having it removed is there?[DOUBLEPOST=1346999675][/DOUBLEPOST]ninja'd
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Shakey said:
It is until it is actually overridden. The idea is that God steers us in a path, but ultimately we make the decision as to what we will do. Just because He can force us to do something, doesn't mean He will or wants to.
Click to expand...
That literally makes no sense to me. Determinism is kind of an all or nothing thing.[DOUBLEPOST=1347002092][/DOUBLEPOST]
tegid said:
Are you saying that, for instance, when one is not in prison they don't have even some measure of freedom because the possibility of having it removed is there?[DOUBLEPOST=1346999675][/DOUBLEPOST]ninja'd
Click to expand...
this is a horrible analogy, however, yes you are NOT free if that freedom can be arbitrarily taken from you.
 
Silent Bob

Silent Bob

Bowielee said:
A better thought experiment is this.

If god is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow free will? Doing so denies him being all powerful be cause he can't influence wills because if he does it means free will doesn't exist. If free will doesn't exist, god is directly responsible for all evil actions done by humans.
Click to expand...
I've debated that one before as well. Also, if adam and eve were completely innocent and naive, why punish them for eating from the tree of knowledge. How can they have free will and yet be unknowing? Same with the concept of hell. If God is omnipresent; omnipotent, etc... then he knows you're going to hell. He created you knowing you'd go to hell.

Now, my friend would come back and say, hell is a choice people make because of free will. Again it's circular logic.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

Bowielee said:
That literally makes no sense to me. Determinism is kind of an all or nothing thing.
Click to expand...
The point is that the potential for God to take away our agency doesn't actually take it away until the point at which he uses that potential. Until that point, we're acting under our own control just as much as if the potential wasn't there.
 
LordRendar

LordRendar

Silent Bob said:
I've debated that one before as well. Also, if adam and eve were completely innocent and naive, why punish them for eating from the tree of knowledge. How can they have free will and yet be unknowing? Same with the concept of hell. If God is omnipresent; omnipotent, etc... then he knows you're going to hell. He created you knowing you'd go to hell.

Now, my friend would come back and say, hell is a choice people make because of free will. Again it's circular logic.
Click to expand...
If I remember my bible correctly,God did say,not to eat from the tree.But they did,so they got punished.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Nice.

So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.

Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.

If you do, I ask you two questions:

1. Do you love them?

and

2. Prove it.

Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.

Least of all mine.
 
Norris

Norris

LordRendar said:
If I remember my bible correctly,God did say,not to eat from the tree.But they did,so they got punished.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the tree was the tree of knowledge. If I'm remembering right, it is at best debatable that Adam and Eve had any kind of concept of right versus wrong before that (as evidenced that the first thing they did after eating the fruit of knowledge was to realize "oh shit, we're just totally flapping in the breeze here, let's make some clothes"). If they have no concept of "right" or "wrong", how would they know that disobeying God was wrong?

Additionally, something about the "free will" bit always bugged me. In my Lutheran Catechism classes, we learned that God is omniscient. He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It is the last bit that bugs me. If that is so, then free will is bullshit. God knew, from the minute he began creation and possibly even before then, exactly what Adam and Eve would. Exactly what Cain would do. Exactly what I would do. Exactly what you would do. There would be no free will, because everything is playing out exactly as God already knows it would. Even if you go with inherent omniscience over total, in which God could know everything but chooses not to in order to preserve free will, it doesn't make sense. Its like saying that choosing not to read spoilers on Wikipedia means Darth Vader might win the first time you watch Star Wars. If you can find out how something ends, that means that the ending is already set in stone.

jwhouk said:
If you do, I ask you two questions:

1. Do you love them?

and

2. Prove it.

Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.

Least of all mine.
Click to expand...
And you're not going to convince me until you make a pair of pants that have the strength of denim and airy quality of nudity. If we're arguing using non sequiturs.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

jwhouk said:
Nice.

So, Bob. If, of course, I may call you Bob.

Do you have a family? Father? Mother? Statistically, it's quite probable, I mean.

If you do, I ask you two questions:

1. Do you love them?

and

2. Prove it.

Until such time as you can provide the answers to those questions adequately - not just to me, but to the entire populace - you're not changing anyone's mind.

Least of all mine.
Click to expand...
It can be argued that feelings of love are just biological and societal constructs that are there to ensure the continuation of the species.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
It can be argued that feelings of love are just biological and societal constructs that are there to ensure the continuation of the species.
Click to expand...
One might also avoid answering a question by constructing a non-sequitur crafted to sound like an answer.

--Patrick
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
One might also avoid answering a question by constructing a non-sequitur crafted to sound like an answer.

--Patrick
Click to expand...
How is that exactly a non-sequitor?[DOUBLEPOST=1347147067][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, this has clearly moved from a thought experiment (if it actually ever was one) to an atheism vs theism pissing match, so I'm out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top