An example of amoral Gods

[edy420]

Meet Pikawho,
A creature from the universe of No Mans Sky.
His Gods have destroyed him.

No Mans Sky, is a universe on Playstation 4.
It contains over 18 Quintilian planets and has its own periodic table.
Each planet has its own ecosystem, weather conditions and various life forms like Pikawho.

The creators of No Mans Sky released a patch that rewrote all the planets and wild life, meaning, our friend here no longer exists.

His Gods have destroyed him.
They destroyed that planet hes standing on, all his friends and even that entire planet in the background.

And lets be honest, who cares?
Should Pikawho's Gods care?
Should we care?

I recently watched a lecture that mocked a God who would smash galaxies together and destroy all the creatures withen those galaxies.
He questioned such a Gods morality.

But if we were created, and we do have a creator, then they are not morally obliged to protect us, and Pikawho is living proof of that..
Or at least, he was..

There is no moral connection between Pikawhos suffering and his Gods.
They can give him an eternal life of happiness, or burn him alive, either way there is no moral implications.
Pikawho and his creators exist in two different realms, where one has control over the other.

My observation here is that smashing galaxies together is no big deal, for game developers/Gods.

[Serpent]

But that would mean we don't have to worry about whatever rules a god may have decreed regarding our behaviour. And that means we can put any kind of figurines we want on a wedding cake, commit suicide if we're in too much pain, go shirtless on the street and use whichever bathroom we prefer.

[Braininvat]

Why should we presume that a God would be deliberately smashing galaxies together? Perhaps God just makes the big bang happen, sets the physical constants, and then lets whatever life emerges deal with its problems. It might be a moral God, but having a morality that is including something sort of like the Prime Directive (in the Star Trek universe), where it must not interfere. The galaxies could just be following physical laws, and God hopes that sentient beings in them will evolve and anticipate cosmic catastrophes before they succumb to them.

[edy420]

Serpent,

If we do have a creator, what rules has he/she decreed?

I like to think the laws of physics are the only rules "decreed" by our creator, assuming we have one.
We can't break any of these rules, as hard as we try, implying the will of God is all powerful.

But when it comes to behavior, I don't see any rules that can't be bent or broken.
Which implies they are not rules given to us by an all powerful being.
Even a rule such as, don't do harm to others, is not universal.
In many warrior cultures, its the opposite.

Rules of religion, are simply rules made by a religious society, and are enforced by those members.
Much like any rules in any society.

When Pikawho disobeys the laws of physics in his universe, the creators assume his programming is bugged, and they fix it/rewrite his code.
If our creator thought that our coding were bugged, then would he/she not fix it?
Maybe our violent nature is amusing to a creator, and well mannered behavior is applauded..

[edy420]

Brainvat,

That depends if our creator is all power\all knowing.
The creators of No Mans Sky have this omnipotent trait.
They can skip ahead in time, to any time and see what is going on in the universe.
When we finally develop A.I and implement that into games like No Mans Sky, then it will be much more interesting to see what happens when we skip through time lines.

Will the A.I attempt to break the rules we set?
Will it attempt to enter our universe?
If we could see a God and his realm, I'm sure we would attempt to..
A good reason to stay anonymous IMO.

[Serpent]

Serpent,

If we do have a creator, what rules has he/she decreed?

None, afaik. We don't have any creator, afaik.

However, when you use the word "gods", you refer to belief-systems and bodies of literature and coda of conduct to which human societies have subscribed for thousands of years and which are embedded in all cultures.
If those systems of thought are irrelevant to your current subject, then so are references to deity and morality.
Therefore i assumed it was intended as tongue-in-cheek.

[edy420]

Its not my intention to make this a religious thread, but I think Pikawho here, gives religious people a leg to stand on when they say they believe in a creator/God.

Pikawhos creators are his Gods.
They are omnipotent to him and his universe.
They are all powerful in Pikawhos universe, all knowing.
If Pikawho does not please his Gods, they will smite him.

At the time there was 12 people in the company Hello Games, that made the universe of No Mans Sky.
If 12 people can create an entire universe on a tiny CD with their primitive technology, then why can't a God/s create ours?

[Serpent]

Pikawhos creators are his Gods.

Only if he has a belief-system that places those programmers at the center of his universe.
If he doesn't know about the programmers, his universe is only what he does know of it, and he has to make up his moral codes according to what he understands, not according to what we know.

At the time there was 12 people in the company Hello Games, that made the universe of No Mans Sky.
If 12 people can create an entire universe on a tiny CD with their primitive technology, then why can't a God/s create ours?

No reason - either to suppose that they did or that they didn't. How is it relevant?

Morality has meaning only to entities that have some transactional relationship to one another.

[mitchellmckain]

Is it fair to assume that Pikawho is unintelligent or anything like human beings? Are your assumptions about what should be God to Pikawho, really telling us about you yourself?

Seems to me what makes a thing/being "God" is the choice to worship. But then the reason/justification for that choice will point to an ultimate value. For example...

1. Worshiping something/someone because it is the most powerful/knowledgeable points to power/knowledge as the ultimate value.
2. Worshiping something because it is the creator of a thing points to that thing as the ultimate value. Perhaps it is only secondary to the creator himself, but the creator has after all by this action of creating it conferred value upon it by doing so.
a. Because it created you, means you are the ultimate value.
b. Because it created life, means life is the ultimate value.
c. etc....
3. Worshiping it because doing so gives you some advantage points to that advantage as the ultimate value.
4. Worshiping something/someone because it is the most good points to goodness as the ultimate value.

The danger with ultimate values is the implication that one will sacrifice everything else for the sake of that one thing.

Will you sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the favor of the one with all the power/knowledge?
Will you sacrifice your good conscience out of loyalty to the one who made you?
Will you sacrifice your friends to damnation for the advantages promised you by your religion?
Is their anything you would not be willing to sacrifice for the sake of what is right and good?

[edy420]

mitchellmckain,

Im not so sure I agree with your definition of God.

Why does a god need to be worshiped?
If a god is no longer worshiped, does he stop being a god?

In my culture, Maori mythology, we have a god of all gods.
His name is Ao.
While he is worshiped he also has other traits.
I think its these traits that makes him a god.

All powerful.
All knowing.
Omnipotent.

Will you sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the favor of the one with all the power/knowledge?
Will you sacrifice your good conscience out of loyalty to the one who made you?
Will you sacrifice your friends to damnation for the advantages promised you by your religion?
Is their anything you would not be willing to sacrifice for the sake of what is right and good?

Im not willing to sacrifice tomorrows lunch.

[edy420]

Serpent,

Morality has meaning only to entities that have some transactional relationship to one another.

Can you elaborate on why there has to be some relationship?

I don't like referencing the Bible, but there are examples where God does have a relationship with some people.
Yet my argument is this analogy suggests the God in the Bible is still amoral, even when burning these people alive.

No Mans Sky developers may love their creations and build a relationship with Pikawho by creating an interactive avatar.
Even if they burn him alive, there's still no moral implications.

Only if he has a belief-system that places those programmers at the center of his universe.

We can use the analogy in reverse too.
Einstein developed a belief in a Pantheistic God, without going through religious channels.
He describes the laws of physics as being books, written in a foreign language.
He goes on to questioning if these books have an author.

This means that Pikawho could discover that he has a creator.
With an advanced A.I, Pikawho could discover his own laws of physics, and ask the same question we cant answer.
Why do the laws of physics work.
We have a good idea how they work and what effects they have, but we have no clue why they work.

Pikawho could discover he was created by God/s, through unanswered questions in science, similar to the way Einstein did.
No need for worship, a relationship, or sacrifice.

[Serpent]

[ Serpent -- Morality has meaning only to entities that have some transactional relationship to one another.]
Can you elaborate on why there has to be some relationship?

Because that's what morality means: a list of do's and dont's, with a corresponding list of penalties for non-compliance - a lamb for this, an ox for that, death by stoning for the other.
A covenant:
"Thou shalt worship the lord thy god with all thy might and all thy soul."
In return, I'll deliver you from evil, make you lie down in green pastures, lead you beside the still waters....
...slay your enemies and give you their lands and daughters.... If you pray for a son long enough, I may grant that wish, then ask for him back, and when you've psyched yourself up to slit his throat, I might say: Just kidding! Here, have a ram instead...

I don't like referencing the Bible, but there are examples where God does have a relationship with some people.

All gods have a relationship with their people. That's the point of gods.
They may reward your fidelity by giving you another man's wife, or by killing your children and covering you with sores... Just kidding! Here, have some new kids. Or save you from pursuit and feed you in the desert, even though you'd been stiff-necked and idolizing all over the place.
If you don't like referencing the bible, why use its language?
That language is appropriate to that context: you get smitten for loving and sinning.

Yet my argument is this analogy suggests the God in the Bible is still amoral, even when burning these people alive.

The god of the bible is a mean, spiteful, capricious, unreliable SOB. I wouldn't worship that one, or recommend him to anyone else. So?

No Mans Sky developers may love their creations and build a relationship with Pikawho by creating an interactive avatar.

Who is interacting with whom? Is the creation interacting with the god, or are two different gods playing with the creations as if they were chess pieces? An intelligent entity may feel possessive toward its creation, but what makes him a god is how the creation feel toward him.

Even if they burn him alive, there's still no moral implications.

Of course not. They can't burn him alive, unless he is alive, in the same way that the creator is alive: both entities have to live in the same realm in order for that sentence to mean anything.
Smiting is interactive.
Deletion is impersonal. Once you use the appropriate language, the obfuscation clears right up.

Pikawho could discover he was created by God/s, through unanswered questions in science, similar to the way Einstein did.

Has Pikawho done this? That is the crux of the matter.

No need for worship, a relationship, or sacrifice.

Then there is no god. It's just a universe.

[edy420]

At the moment Pikawho is just a script, he can only discover science if he's told to.
But with an advanced A.I he would most likely figure it out.

Being in the same universe makes no difference when it comes to morality.
A.I proves my point here too, because once A.I is advanced enough, we could make living droids.
Droids who think for themselves, and with pain receptors.
The only argument for this kind of droid not being our living equal, is saying they have no soul, but I doubt you'd make that argument.

Destroying a living droid is still just, as you put it, deletion.

[mitchellmckain]

mitchellmckain,

Im not so sure I agree with your definition of God.

I don't think I have given one. I have simply claimed that your reason for calling something "God" points to what you value most.

Why does a god need to be worshiped?
If a god is no longer worshiped, does he stop being a god?

Nobody said anything about a god needing to be worshiped. That is your idea. The fact is that people do typically worship what they give the name of God -- and I have NEVER heard them claim that their God needed to be worshiped. Besides, I have not specified what "worship" consists of and it could be no more than calling the thing/being by the word "God."

In my culture, Maori mythology, we have a god of all gods.
His name is Ao.
While he is worshiped he also has other traits.
I think its these traits that makes him a god.

All powerful.
All knowing.
Omnipotent.

Cool! I know a tiny bit about the Maori from Alan Dean Foster's book and the film Whale Rider.

For me there is only one thing that can make me label a being by the word "God" and that is goodness. If there could ever be any righteous cause against a powerful being, I am likely to use a different word, like angel, demigod, spirit, alien, or demiurge. And to such a being I may offer friendship, respect, enmity or contempt depending on the cause against him, regardless of whatever knowledge/power he may have. I cannot sell out my integrity just because of fear.

If I have fear for the one I DO name God, it is only because I know that He is beyond any power of mine to control or manipulate. Some might just call that a high degree of respect, but I think this is not entirely honest because manipulation is too much a part of how human beings live with each other. I must admit, most of the religious I have seen do think they can control and manipulate their god in some way and that frankly make it look more like a tool they use for manipulating others.

Will you sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the favor of the one with all the power/knowledge?
Will you sacrifice your good conscience out of loyalty to the one who made you?
Will you sacrifice your friends to damnation for the advantages promised you by your religion?
Is there anything you would not be willing to sacrifice for the sake of what is right and good?

Im not willing to sacrifice tomorrows lunch.

Are you sure about that?
You are not willing to sacrifice tomorrow's lunch for what is right and good?
I would give my life. The only hesitation would come from the need to be absolutely sure that I know what is right and that it is good. No small thing to be sure, but I can easily think of examples. To stop a maniac from shooting at people -- easy! To stop a sicko from abusing children -- nothing difficult about that!

[edy420]

When I posted the OP, I had an agnostic point of view.
But now I’m a full fledged Catholic, I answer these questions a little differently.

When it comes to making a sacrifice for our Gods, we may still use reason when deciding if the sacrifice is too great.
I accept that I am a sinner, and if I am sinning by denying great sacrifice, then I must pray for forgiveness.

As for the matter of ignoring a God exists..
In my example, Pikawho is a subject of omnipotent creation.
His universe is both a part of his creators universe, but also separate.
Is it not fair to say that his creators are God’s to him?

[mitchellmckain]

When I posted the OP, I had an agnostic point of view.
But now I’m a full fledged Catholic, I answer these questions a little differently.

I assume you mean Roman Catholic. Although I prefer the theological position of the Orthodox on a few issues (original sin, atonement, reason why God created) and think they have the better claim to being like the earliest churches,... as a church I actually like the Roman Catholic church better. The Eastern Orthodox are too conservative (unchanging) for my taste. I am not one to go for something just because it is older or the original -- change is good. But I am not Catholic. I am not only protestant but evangelical (though liberal evangelical to be sure).

When it comes to making a sacrifice for our Gods, we may still use reason when deciding if the sacrifice is too great.
I accept that I am a sinner, and if I am sinning by denying great sacrifice, then I must pray for forgiveness.

Making sacrifices only because your religion tells you, is not a good reason. Making sacrifices can even be pathological or unhealthy, so having rational limits is a good thing.

As for the matter of ignoring a God exists..
In my example, Pikawho is a subject of omnipotent creation.
His universe is both a part of his creators universe, but also separate.
Is it not fair to say that his creators are God’s to him?

Pikawho is not a living or conscious being. Like all characters created in games, movies and films all important choices are made by the author. They are thus a static 4 dimensional object and nothing more. We are different because the future is not written and there are no hidden variables determining our actions. Thus we can take ownership of our choices apart from anything external to us and that makes us alive and conscious quite different from a book or DVD.

[wolfhnd]

There is a bit of biological determinism to be considered. The post modernists are correct that there are an infinite number of possible moral codes but they fail to recognize that there are finite number of codes that are pragmatic.

[mitchellmckain]

There is a bit of biological determinism to be considered.

There is no such thing as a "bit of" determinism any more than there such a thing as a little bit pregnant. The correct word in this case is "causality" not "determinism." Things certainly have causes and 99.999999% of the instances of causality may consist of the results being entirely calculable from the pre-existing conditions -- but that is not determinism. The fact is that there are events which science has proven to have no physical cause (no hidden variables within the premises of the scientific world view) to determine the result, and these alter the course of events thereafter.

The post modernists are correct that there are an infinite number of possible moral codes but they fail to recognize that there are finite number of codes that are pragmatic.

Incorrect. Moral codes include both absolutes (things for which there are reasons why some things are better than others) and the arbitrary relative dictates of convention. The former certainly restricts the possible moral codes to a subset which is practical, but there is no reason why the latter should be finite -- indeed they can be infinitely creative.

[edy420]

Pikawho is not a living or conscious being. Like all characters created in games, movies and films all important choices are made by the author. They are thus a static 4 dimensional object and nothing more. We are different because the future is not written and there are no hidden variables determining our actions. Thus we can take ownership of our choices apart from anything external to us and that makes us alive and conscious quite different from a book or DVD.

A simple thought experiment, counters all your points here.

Instead of building a virtual universe based on programmable creatures, we could instead program the conditions for a universe.

Quite simply, we take a virtual void of space that is infinitely large.
Replicate the codes of the laws of physics, from our universe.
Then kick back and watch as a big bang materializes.
Hit fast forward until we see the first instance of abiogenesis.
Hit fast forward again, until we see Pikawho becoming a man.(humanoid man thing)

Now this version of Pikawho has his own authentic DNA code, instead of an artificially created code.
Now he also has his own free will.

We are free to light him on fire at any point in time and be amorally responsible.
We are his Gods.

[mitchellmckain]

Pikawho is not a living or conscious being. Like all characters created in games, movies and films all important choices are made by the author. They are thus a static 4 dimensional object and nothing more. We are different because the future is not written and there are no hidden variables determining our actions. Thus we can take ownership of our choices apart from anything external to us and that makes us alive and conscious quite different from a book or DVD.

A simple thought experiment, counters all your points here.

Instead of building a virtual universe based on programmable creatures, we could instead program the conditions for a universe.

Quite simply, we take a virtual void of space that is infinitely large.
Replicate the codes of the laws of physics, from our universe.
Then kick back and watch as a big bang materializes.
Hit fast forward until we see the first instance of abiogenesis.
Hit fast forward again, until we see Pikawho becoming a man.(humanoid man thing)

Now this version of Pikawho has his own authentic DNA code, instead of an artificially created code.
Now he also has his own free will.

We are free to light him on fire at any point in time and be amorally responsible.
We are his Gods.

I don't know what you think you have countered. If you use the laws of physics from our universe then what you get are events with no hidden variables to determine their outcome. In this universe the future only exists as a superpostion of possibilities -- nothing like a book or DVD at all. In such a case the creators do not design a Pikawho. Any living organisms which evolve are a product of their own choices and at most the creators can only participate in a role comparable to farmers, shepherds or teachers. If they offers advice then these creatures may or may not pay any attention to them, and there is no telling how they might regard these creators if they see any reason to believe in such things at all. If the creators set the organisms on fire then I certainly would not consider them to be Gods if I were in their place, but like the creature in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein would feel justified in expressing my outrage and disgust at these mad scientists by sending them to their just deserts if I can, and if unable to do so would still derive satisfaction from opposing them no matter how hopeless it might be, as in Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus."

So no... they would not be Gods to any but the the depraved worms who grovel either from a lack of backbone or from a desperate desire to grasp some of that power for themselves -- like those who serve Voldemort in the Harry Potter universe.

[edy420]

So no... they would not be Gods to any but the the depraved worms who grovel either from a lack of backbone

So a creators subjects, have a choice if their creator is a god or not?

or from a desperate desire to grasp some of that power for themselves -- like those who serve Voldemort in the Harry Potter universe.

An interesting concept.
Angels can be thought of, as trying to obtain the power of creation for themselves.

In a virtual universe, we could say angels were not created by chance via the laws of physics and evolution.
Instead they were intentionally created and coded by the creator, with the knowledge that they are in a virtual world.
This would mean that Satan is simply, a program gone mad, a virus that can’t be deleted and who has access to the programming controls.

The only problem is they are not omnipotent.
If the universe is destroyed, they go with it.

[mitchellmckain]

So no... they would not be Gods to any but the the depraved worms who grovel either from a lack of backbone

So a creators subjects, have a choice if their creator is a god or not?

If they are a truly alive (and thus a product of evolution and learning)? Yes.
If they are a product of design like characters in a book or NPCs in a game? No.

or from a desperate desire to grasp some of that power for themselves -- like those who serve Voldemort in the Harry Potter universe.

An interesting concept.
Angels can be thought of, as trying to obtain the power of creation for themselves.

In a virtual universe, we could say angels were not created by chance via the laws of physics and evolution.
Instead they were intentionally created and coded by the creator, with the knowledge that they are in a virtual world.
This would mean that Satan is simply, a program gone mad, a virus that can’t be deleted and who has access to the programming controls.

The only problem is they are not omnipotent.
If the universe is destroyed, they go with it.

Since angels are typically thought of being something outside the laws of physics and evolution then they they can be thought of in these terms regardless. Much of the lore suggests that they are a product of design rather than learning and evolution. Even products of a design like software can be unpredictable when interacting with human beings. But since they are not a part of the laws of physics then it is hard to see why they cannot be deleted and this suggests that they serve a purpose despite having gone mad.

Furthermore, the logic of the theology works much better if these are products of design gone mad in their interactions with human beings. Otherwise it is hard to explain the creation of a natural world at all, and a creator who brings children (living creations) into a world already corrupted with evil cannot be considered righteous. I suppose you can go the route of most Xtians and consider human beings as nothing more than tools which the creator uses for whatever purpose he chooses, but I would consider that theology to have even more profound flaws.