Yes, you can be a moral God… but why bother?
If God is the God of the Old Testament and ordered genocide then God is not a nice guy, therefore God does not exist. If God exists doesn’t he hear all the children in the world crying out to him that are slowly dying of hunger? Therefore God does not exist. If God is moral, loving, compassionate or whatever then why are their so many crappy things going on in the world? Why are their wars and rape and bank fraud and wire tapping? Why are there tsunamis and earthquakes and skin cancer? Therefore God does not exist.
Why would God have to be moral to be God?
When I was a child I used to set up these little plastic figurines and shoot them with my BB gun. Now, if I somehow could have magically animated those bits of plastic to make target practice more interesting, maybe I would have. Maybe that’s why God created the whole shebang just to stick us on a collective microscope slide, dropping tincture on us to observe as our organs slowly grind to a halt. If the world has design, does the designer have to be a nice guy?
When I was a little older I was in shop class. I was a little bit lucky because I managed to skip Shop 1 which was doing everything with hand tools and sand paper and useless crap like that. In Shop 2 we were allowed to use power tools and we would make wooden knives on the sanders and shoot each other with the nail guns. In shop I built a chair from scratch. The school provided the wood, but when I was done I owned the chair. I didn’t actually make the wood, it grew in a tree, but I fashioned it and assembled it into a chair, so by virtue of my labor, I owned the chair. I actually changed the design a bit because I made a rocking chair for my Mom, so it became my Mom’s chair. I screwed up the angle though, so when you sit in it you always feel like you’re falling out, which is a particularly fatal flaw for a rocking chair. Anyhow, despite the inadequacies of my design I owned the chair because I made it and I think my Mom still has it, not because it’s a brilliant chair, but because I made it.
Here’s where you may have to suspend your disbelief for a minute, depending on your paradigm. So if God or the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus really did create the Earth, the universe and all that’s held within, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that he would “own” it? If he owns it, can’t he do what he likes with it? For that matter, if he created all matter, then even my body is his. The only thing that I can claim as strictly my own is my mind or whatever I have that is not dependent on my body for survival, if anything. But I still think God should at least act in a moral way. If I was God I would just create the universe in such a way that whatever my natural bent is would be considered right, and that’s exactly what he did. He made the rules.
In our current culture we have adopted a general code of conduct of do no harm. More specifically, do no harm to other human beings. We seem to be extending that philosophy to animals, yet we still farm and slaughter millions of animals every year, that doesn’t seem like a nice thing to do. Right now, there is no law endorsing assisted suicide for terminally ill people or people that just don’t want to live anymore, but it seems quite probable that one day this will be a regular occurrence. In the not too distant past, people with disabilities were killed because they were not considered useful. Today we look on that as shameful. The point being that our morals are on a shifting scale. The concept of do no harm to others works well in our modern, secure, egalitarian society but what would that mean if we lived in a tribal society where there was a shortage of food and more people than the amount of available land. People in our tribe might kill some people of the neighboring tribe and eat them because this creates less demand for the land and a meal for someone in our tribe. In this context it would be do no harm to people in our tribe, but people outside the tribe are fair game.
It seems to me a bit illogical that we should judge God by our movable scale, as if God should accommodate us, not the other way around.
So what about the genocide in the Old Testament when the Israelites were conquering the promised land? That’s indefensible, surely? Well I don’t know, but if, by virtue of creating it from nothing, God actually owns the whole world, including our bodies, he calls the shots and determines when to pull the plug. Would it have been more palatable if God had just wiped out the inhabitants of the land with a plague and not make the Israelites get their hands dirty? According to the Bible, God himself used the enemies of Israel to straighten them out by occasionally invading their land and oppressing them in the process killing several thousand people, so the Israelites were not immune to judgment by the sword.
One of my favorite lines that some smokers use to defend their habit is, “statistically speaking 100% of non-smokers die”. The flip side of that is “if you live long enough, smoking will kill you”. The point is everyone dies. If we look at this from the perspective of a God that created time and likely exists in and outside of time, the time we spend on earth will be approximately the same whether we were here for 1 minute or 100 years. It’s like being in an examination and we don’t know when the bell will ring, but we will only be tested on what we were able to finish. That’s a crude analogy but give it the benefit of the doubt if you don’t mind.
I know this suspension of disbelief is a difficult exercise for someone reading it of another paradigm. You can put your realism glasses back on now. To be sure, I don’t have a complete answer for the problems of pain in the world, but I do know that the periods of pain in my own life have been times of personal growth and formation of my character. The slack times I often question if God really knows what he is doing and selectively forget the things he has done for me in the past. I understand that some people would explain that away as fluke, but that’s a topic for a different post.
If you want to find out more about the subject of pain in the world, read the book of Job. Job and his friends deliberate almost endlessly (sort of like bloggers). In the end God shows up, not to give Job and his posse answers but basically says “who are you to question me?” I know that sounds like an incredibly arrogant thing to say, but he is after all, the Creator of the Universe.
So I guess if he wanted to, he could act morally, but in the end, when you’re God, you make the rules and why would he bother playing by our rules?
In the end, I’m not here to defend God. He is certainly able to defend himself when he sees fit, I’m just presenting my personal convictions and the conclusions that I have come to.
29/04/2009 at 22:52
Sorry for the length of this post. I don’t know how I could have made it shorter, except leave out my silly childhood stories.
19/05/2009 at 10:09
lol! I like this.
To go a bit further – if God created the universe, /why/ did he do it?
Was he bored? Does God get bored? I would imagine someone that knows everything would be exceedingly bored all the time.
Is it an experiment? If so, then God does not know everything.
Was it so worshippers could evolve? If so, then God is either arrogant or has low self-esteem.
If I could create a universe, I would. Mostly for entertainment, I think. Or maybe for companionship – it is interesting to think that maybe God created the universe so that its inhabitants could eventually “uplift” themselves and become gods themselves.
Or maybe the universe simply created itself
Occam’s razor suggests it.
26/05/2009 at 00:08
I have heard several versions of how the universe could have created itself which range from the extremely unlikely to the illogical/impossible. The only one that makes any sense to me is that the universe was created with a time loop back to itself. The only problem is that it works from our side of the equation – going back in time, but not from the other side of the equation – nothing to something. The idea put forward that the universe was created by two membranes touching from alternate dimensions still needs the other dimensions and therefore doesn’t address the point of when does nothing become something. The idea that all the matter and energy in the universe has always existed is completely illogical to me.
26/05/2009 at 07:25
Let’s look at it from the Occam’s razor point of view.
Perspective #1 – God created the universe.
1. the universe exists.
2. at one point the universe must not have existed.
3. therefore the universe must have at one point come from non-existence to existence.
4. therefore it is possible to create something from nothing.
5. we do not know how this happened, so cannot say whether it happened randomly or was directed.
6. let us assume that it was directed.
7. directing the creation requires intelligence.
8. that intelligence was God.
9. we do not know where God came from.
Perspective #2 – the universe created itself.
1. the universe exists.
2. at one point the universe must not have existed.
3. therefore the universe must have at one point come from non-existence to existence.
4. therefore it is possible to create something from nothing.
5. we do not know how this happened, so cannot say whether it happened randomly or was directed.
6. let us assume it was random.
7. randomness has no requirements.
8. therefore the universe could create itself.
In both cases, I think we can agree that the first 5 points are accurate. It is absolutely possible to create something from nothing.
If not, then either the universe does not exist, or the universe has always existed. Both of these results are unlikely .
The question then is – was the creation random or directed? Since we do not know exactly how to create something from nothing, we cannot tell which it is. Perspective #1 states that creation requires an intelligent creator, while perspective #2 suggests that if creation can happen randomly, then it /did/ happen randomly.
I believe that perspective #2 is less complex than perspective #1, and has a greater chance of being correct.
Now, let’s consider if creation can be random.
What /is/ existence? What is “real”? Some people say reality is a load of tiny string vibrations. Others say it’s a load of nodes on a cosmic foam. Either way, it all boils down to numbers.
The reality is that everything that exists can be described completely using just numbers. And some of those numbers can be negative.
What happens when positive is combined with negative is that the two objects being “added” cancel each other out. They “uncreate”. This famously happens when matter and anti-matter are combined.
That’s also why string theory is a good analogy. When two wave forms, which are equal but opposite, are combined, they both sum up to a straight line – they uncreate.
So, it is possible to create nothing from something.
To do the opposite is a bit more difficult, but still possible.
one example is the Casimir effect, where virtual photons are created and destroyed almost instantly. Every now and then, a virtual pair will separate enough that they are not cancelled out and they become “real”. In sum total, they still add to nothing, but each side of the equation is as real as every other photon in existence.
Another example is Hawking radiation, where virtual photon pairs are created on the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes into “reality”.
both of those are examples of random creation from nothing. the Casimir effect is a more likely candidate for creation of the universe, as it does not require a black hole to help it come into existence.
This is fun, isn’t it!
27/05/2009 at 00:50
Ok, I generally agree with the principle that the least complicated explanation is typically the most likely. We have to be careful that we don’t end up mixing metaphors or applying the wrong model to a given situation.
“7. randomness has no requirements.” Randomness does have requirements. What creates random events on earth? Molecules bumping into each other, people making decisions, stored energy being released (like an earthquake), etc. Nothing does not make the list of causes of randomness. Here is an experiment you should do if you could get a little bit of funding: create a sealed vacuum chamber with a window in it and observe. What happens? Nothing. Even if something did happen, you could postulate that the happening was caused by light, so maybe you would have to invent a form of completely non invasive observation in order to fully carry out the spirit of this exercise. Anyhow, I think you get the point. Nothing causes nothing.
Even in the context of your example, virtual matter is created by actual matter as if it is pulling it into existence. But where you have nothing, you have no cause at all.
When you take the simplest route from point A to point B, it still has to make sense.
“So, it is possible to create nothing from something.” Correction: it is possible to create nothing from a something and a negative something. It is a small difference in wording, but without it, you are missing half the equation.
“9. we do not know where God came from.” I agree. Here is a little thought exercise. Now suppose we took a colony of ants and we put them in a gigantic impenetrable container with all the necessary materials to set up an independent ecosystem, etc., but with no materials that they could ever use to escape from their impenetrable box. We invent a time machine and we check up on our ants in a billion years or so. The ants are long since sentient. They write poetry, engage in politics and enjoy going to the pub on Fridays. What will the ants say is the origin of their box? What is outside their box? What would life be like outside their box? Did someone make the box or did the box always exist? This might seem like a bit of a daft thought experiment, but the point is, just because we can’t see outside our box doesn’t mean there isn’t anything else there. Why couldn’t it be God?
I understand that saying that God created the universe in the first place is more complicated than the universe creating itself, but the universe creating itself from nothing doesn’t make sense. If you could name one other thing that has created itself, literally, with no other complicating factors, such as your zero point energy example, then I would concede the possibility of the universe creating itself.
The problem with this logic of simplest is best is that we are taking a general principle that works well in the day to day normal time of living on earth and stretching that model to include the creation of the universe. It doesn’t stretch that far.
26/05/2009 at 09:55
Oops – what I describe as the “Casimir effect” actually should be “zero point energy”. the Casimir effect is just one example of how zero point energy manifests itself.