If you were God...

[_truth dancer]

Poor Ceeboo, on his meant-to-be-lighthearted thread, (smile), a question was asked that I think deserves some answers. So as not to further derail Cee's discussion, I'm starting a new thread. :-)

If you were God, (just imagine for a second), and wanted to protect children from abuse, what would you do? The question was asked by Hoops who seemed to give the impression that there was nothing God could do. (If I read this wrong Hoops, then please feel free to elaborate).

So a few parameters...

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. God is the creator of everything that exists.

Again, if you were God and wanted to protect children from the horror of abuse, what would you do?

Off the top of my head, here are a few ideas to get the discussion going...

God creates some energy that exists in our world, (say, like gravity), where children are off limits for any cruelty and abuse by adults.
God could protect children with some sort of invisible shield (think magnetism)
God could make something in children so if an adult tries to harm them, the adult is burned, (like touching a hot stove)
God could make it so that all children have a strength (like steal), that their hearts and minds are impenetrable to any harm
God could create something in an adult brain that only wants to help and protect children, (like a maternal/paternal instinct that is infallible)
God could instill in our DNA something so no desire to harm children ever exists (as strong as the need for food)
God could send a few angels to watch over each child and if someone tries to harm them the angels draw a few flaming swords (smile)
God could create something in children that if anyone every begins to harm them a noxious spray (think skunk), covers the perpetrator/abuser

The point is, if GOD has created this world as it is, (I mean really, think of everything we know that exists, think of how the human functions, think of what is possible...), I just do not think it would be that difficult for such a being to tweak a little thing here and there to eliminate the horror that exists with the current plan.

;-)

~td~

[_zeezrom]

The problem is in this assumption:

"God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. God is the creator of everything that exists."

Which is very likely a faulty assumption.

[_mentalgymnast]

So a few parameters...

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.

Hi TD, hope all is well with you and yours.

I was saddened to read of the the horrific stuff that occurred with your foster child.

I think that it's going to be difficult to get to the topic of what could God do to protect children from abuse without defining exactly how omniscient, how omnipotent, and how omnipresent God is. Also, what does it mean for God to be omnibenevolent? If God isn't on the same page as you are regards to how you define the attributes of God, you're going to have a problem from the get go.

I suppose I'm more of a reverse engineering kind of guy. I start with belief in God and then look for other reasons/rationale for the horrific and apparently non-sensical things that go on in the world besides holding diety culpable and calling him out as a cruel, uncaring and unjust dictator/ruler.

So, I think that your assumptions about God and his absolute attributes may be in error to the extent that they may need to be tweaked a bit.

Have you read or listened to Blake Ostler?

Here is a short statement he made in regards to God having his limits:

I do believe that there are certain limitations for God but I don't believe that limitations are a bad thing.

For instance, I believe that limitations in cruelty, ignorance and stupidity are good things. So I don't think that limitations in and of themselves are necessarily bad and I do believe that God has certain limitations. For instance, I don't believe that God could make cruelty love; I don't believe that God could make people who freely choose to love him out of nothing.

And so if you want to say that a God who is limited in any sense is finite I'd say, 'Well technically yes this God is finite.' But I also believe that God is supreme... I believe that God has maximal power and knowledge and love.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... tions.html

Here is a small snapshot of Ostler's thinking in regards to God's omniscience:

... much of what has been said about God in the Christian past is simply wrong and also unscriptural and that those Latter-day Saint writers who have been enamored of more traditional Christian theologies have brought these same errors along with them. [Ostler] believes, of course, that God knows all that can be known. Hence, God is omniscient. But he cannot know, at least in precise detail, what actions free agents will perform in the future. If God can know today that John will steal a car tomorrow, then it is true today that John will steal a car tomorrow. This is determinism, and it follows from the belief that God can know for certain whether or not John will steal the car tomorrow (1:137—86, 295—330).

To preserve moral agency and responsibility as taught in scripture, Ostler accepts the currently widely discussed view called "present omniscience." God knows everything that is true at every present moment. If freedom is real, however, he cannot have future omniscience—that is, he cannot know the future contingent acts of free agents.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=608

Ostler also said in regards to the God the creator:

...there can be no rivals to the one God because in this sense God comprehends all reality within the scope of his governing power, knowledge and love. The divine persons as-one-God enjoy life on a level of existence different from individuals. Though humans also have necessary existence, the level of existence of the Godhead is vastly different. The power, knowledge, and compassion of the one God are supreme. No individual being could consistently know more or have more efficacious power or even approach the type of knowledge, power and omnipresence possessed by the Godhead.

Almost sounds contradictory to what he said before, right?

Many of Ostler's writings dealing with God and his attributes, his nature, etc. can be found here:

http://blakeostler.com/complete_works.html

and here:

http://blakeostler.com/theology.html

I think your parameters may need further exploration before you move on to your question regarding, "Again, if you were God and wanted to protect children from the horror of abuse, what would you do?"

Good to hear from you again.

Regards,
MG

[_asbestosman]

God could just create a Virtual Reality simulation. No children are actually harmed in the simulator--only the conscience of those who do not respond appropriately to the simulation as though it is real since it feels genuine.

On that note, I wonder if the sins I commit in my dreams are things I need to confess to my bishop? They seem real at the time. If so, what if I forget the dream sin and therefore don't repent?

[_Hoops]

You will need to define abuse/cruetly and also explain why it's always bad.

[_malaise]

So a few parameters...

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.

Hi TD, hope all is well with you and yours.

I was saddened to read of the the horrific stuff that occurred with your foster child.

I think that it's going to be difficult to get to the topic of what could God do to protect children from abuse without defining exactly how omniscient, how omnipotent, and how omnipresent God is. Also, what does it mean for God to be omnibenevolent? If God isn't on the same page as you are regards to how you define the attributes of God, you're going to have a problem from the get go.

I suppose I'm more of a reverse engineering kind of guy. I start with belief in God and then look for other reasons/rationale for the horrific and apparently non-sensical things that go on in the world besides holding diety culpable and calling him out as a cruel, uncaring and unjust dictator/ruler.

So, I think that your assumptions about God and his absolute attributes may be in error to the extent that they may need to be tweaked a bit.

Have you read or listened to Blake Ostler?

Here is a short statement he made in regards to God having his limits:

I do believe that there are certain limitations for God but I don't believe that limitations are a bad thing.

For instance, I believe that limitations in cruelty, ignorance and stupidity are good things. So I don't think that limitations in and of themselves are necessarily bad and I do believe that God has certain limitations. For instance, I don't believe that God could make cruelty love; I don't believe that God could make people who freely choose to love him out of nothing.

And so if you want to say that a God who is limited in any sense is finite I'd say, 'Well technically yes this God is finite.' But I also believe that God is supreme... I believe that God has maximal power and knowledge and love.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... tions.html

Here is a small snapshot of Ostler's thinking in regards to God's omniscience:

... much of what has been said about God in the Christian past is simply wrong and also unscriptural and that those Latter-day Saint writers who have been enamored of more traditional Christian theologies have brought these same errors along with them. [Ostler] believes, of course, that God knows all that can be known. Hence, God is omniscient. But he cannot know, at least in precise detail, what actions free agents will perform in the future. If God can know today that John will steal a car tomorrow, then it is true today that John will steal a car tomorrow. This is determinism, and it follows from the belief that God can know for certain whether or not John will steal the car tomorrow (1:137—86, 295—330).

To preserve moral agency and responsibility as taught in scripture, Ostler accepts the currently widely discussed view called "present omniscience." God knows everything that is true at every present moment. If freedom is real, however, he cannot have future omniscience—that is, he cannot know the future contingent acts of free agents.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=608

Ostler also said in regards to the God the creator:

...there can be no rivals to the one God because in this sense God comprehends all reality within the scope of his governing power, knowledge and love. The divine persons as-one-God enjoy life on a level of existence different from individuals. Though humans also have necessary existence, the level of existence of the Godhead is vastly different. The power, knowledge, and compassion of the one God are supreme. No individual being could consistently know more or have more efficacious power or even approach the type of knowledge, power and omnipresence possessed by the Godhead.

Almost sounds contradictory to what he said before, right?

Many of Ostler's writings dealing with God and his attributes, his nature, etc. can be found here:

http://blakeostler.com/complete_works.html

and here:

http://blakeostler.com/theology.html

I think your parameters may need further exploration before you move on to your question regarding, "Again, if you were God and wanted to protect children from the horror of abuse, what would you do?"

Good to hear from you again.

Regards,
MG

Free will is a comfortable illusion. Whenever anyone makes a choice they make it because there is one option they prefer over their other options. So if I choose to quite being a member of the LDS church because it is crazy crazy, then I prefer to stop being a Mormon over continuing to be a Mormon. Although you make this thesis more complicated by discussing unconscious decisions and so on, the basic argument still works. So choice is based preferences and desires. Where do preferences and desires come from? Well, it seems like they have to come from our biology, culture, and personal experiences- not meaningful choices we make. If I was to choose my own preferences I would be making a choice, which means we would already have preferences and could not have chosen them. So if god was creating the universe and was making a causal chain he should be able to know exactly how everyone he creates will turn out since he can simply imagine the chain of causal linkages that lead to a person desiring to make a particular choice(s). It would be a very limited "god" who couldn't manage that.

[_truth dancer]

The problem is in this assumption:

"God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. God is the creator of everything that exists."

Which is very likely a faulty assumption.

Ahh Zee, quit being a party pooper!

;-)

~td~

[_truth dancer]

God could just create a Virtual Reality simulation. No children are actually harmed in the simulator--only the conscience of those who do not respond appropriately to the simulation as though it is real since it feels genuine.

On that note, I wonder if the sins I commit in my dreams are things I need to confess to my bishop? They seem real at the time. If so, what if I forget the dream sin and therefore don't repent?

LOL... I like it! Remember this when you have world without number of your own!

:-)

~td~

Oh, I would forgo any discussion of dreams with your Bish! ;-)

[_truth dancer]

You will need to define abuse/cruetly and also explain why it's always bad.

No I don't! ;-)

I'm going with the assumption that cruelty toward children is bad. Just go with me here Hoops!

If you want to be a God that thinks cruetly toward children is good, well start another thread!

(I'm playing with you here... smile)!

~td~

[_truth dancer]

Hi Malaise,

Welcome to the board! Your comments are thought provoking!

I will say, the more I learn about the brain the more I am convinced that "choice and accountability," is NOTHING like what is taught in any religion!

At this point in my life I'm thinking there is little free will, perhaps none? I do not know, but I am quite certain our behaviors are not just about consciously choosing!

:-)

~td~