Assuming there is a God - would He care?

[Kitsune]

Assuming there is an all powerful being, would such a being even actually care about us or our souls? We don't worry about individual cells dying off in our own body, for example. Would we be something like that to an all powerful being?

[Kanastrous]

Depends upon whether or not you believe this being specifically created us. If yes, then it seems reasonable to suppose that we're of interest. If no, then possibly not.

[Kitsune]

Depends upon whether or not you believe this being specifically created us. If yes, then it seems reasonable to suppose that we're of interest. If no, then possibly not.

Do most us worry about our creations in a lab once we are done with the experiment?

[Kanastrous]

I don't know. Probably not. But then we're human, and a creator-god is not human, so there may not be reason to suppose that we could anticipate a creator-god's perspective.

[andrewgpaul]

I don't see how the simple fact of God's existence tells us anything, one way or the other, about its attitude towards us, really. Perhaps with infinite intelligence comes infinite compassion; or perhaps, as you say, we're just scum on a cosmic petri dish.

[Mayabird]

Some parents are better than other parents. Some actually give a shit about their offspring and want them to live full, happy lives. Some use meth and leave their three year olds to fend for themselves and their toddler and infant siblings. A few actively torture and torment their kids. Why should we assume that a god or gods (seriously, I know we were mostly raised in a monotheistic culture, but why presume the existence of only one single god instead of a range between zero and infinity possible gods) would be any different?

[Patrick Degan]

Assuming there is an all powerful being, would such a being even actually care about us or our souls? We don't worry about individual cells dying off in our own body, for example. Would we be something like that to an all powerful being?

That was in fact the last philosophical question which killed what remained of my own faith in the Invisible Cloud-Being. A god responsible for the entire universe would, by necessity, be a cosmic-scale being in our terms as I reasoned it then. For such an entity to be concerned about the denizens of one tiny planet around one tiny solar system in one tiny galaxy within such immensity would be akin to my being obsessively concerned with the doings of individual atoms in one of my fingernails. Prayers hoping for its favour or even it's momentary attention to myself would be useless, and from there it was an easy step to the proposition that a universe with an Invisible Cloud-Being was really no different operationally than a universe with no such being at all. Not long after that, it came down to just the universe and nothing else.

So much for god.

[Kanastrous]

You know, if you are going to go so far as to assume a god, why not just keep going and make whatever assumptions it suits you to make, regarding that god's degree of interest in us?

[Kitsune]

I used "A God" as shorthand...Of course they could theoretically be one or infinite gods if there are any. My biggest problem is one of scale though, we would be infinitesimally insignificant compared to any cosmic being. In the case of a parent or even the owner of a dog, we are on a similar scale. Owners of ant farms again don't particularly worried about the individual ants.

[defanatic]

You know, if you are going to go so far as to assume a god, why not just keep going and make whatever assumptions it suits you to make, regarding that god's degree of interest in us?

This.

Hypothetically, a god/s could care about us. But maybe they don't. Maybe it's impractical, maybe they just don't want to care.

Whether they would or not is probably unanswerable, so you might as well make whatever assumptions you want and just believe what you will. If you want.

[speaker-to-trolls]

You know I don't thionk our relative lack of size compared to a God would necessarily prevent it showing an interest in us. Can't a scientist become fascinated, even emotionally attached, to the unimaginably small biological molecules he studies? We could be the equivalent of self sufficient enzymes or self replicating RNA ribozymes or something of that nature, something which it can recognise as similar to itself, and possibly the only such stuff in the universe, it's entirely possible it would care about us.

[Kanastrous]

Except that this god would simply be studying something it created itself, and therefore already presumably knows everything about. In fact, a god that doesn't know everything about the universe it created itself, doesn't sound like a god.

[Samuel]

You know I don't thionk our relative lack of size compared to a God would necessarily prevent it showing an interest in us. Can't a scientist become fascinated, even emotionally attached, to the unimaginably small biological molecules he studies? We could be the equivalent of self sufficient enzymes or self replicating RNA ribozymes or something of that nature, something which it can recognise as similar to itself, and possibly the only such stuff in the universe, it's entirely possible it would care about us.

Or how collider techs feel about the electrons they are throwing? Notice is different from actual caring- just because something is interesting doesn't mean you would take good care of it- after all, it is more fun to test it and see its breaking point. Or make things burn.

The problem with all this "would a God care" is that such a being has no reason to have emotions, much less empathy. Then there is the fact that for any non-super powered God (aka Greek style) humans are slow, complicated and die easily. An advanced alien civilization would be more interesting and offer more of a sim like experience.

Prayers hoping for its favour or even it's momentary attention to myself would be useless

Prayer is silly in any sanely designed fantasy, much less reality. After all, why does an all seeing God need to be informed of something?

Some parents are better than other parents. Some actually give a shit about their offspring and want them to live full, happy lives. Some use meth and leave their three year olds to fend for themselves and their toddler and infant siblings. A few actively torture and torment their kids. Why should we assume that a god or gods (seriously, I know we were mostly raised in a monotheistic culture, but why presume the existence of only one single god instead of a range between zero and infinity possible gods) would be any different?

Actually, parents are genetically programmed to interact and care about their kids- kids are cute. Looking at creatures that don't have such drives is a better indicator.

Except that this god would simply be studying something it created itself, and therefore already presumably knows everything about. In fact, a god that doesn't know everything about the universe it created itself, doesn't sound like a god.

Why? Making and comprehending are two different things. Unless you want in onimax God which breaks logic until it screams.

[Kanastrous]

Prayers hoping for its favour or even it's momentary attention to myself would be useless

Prayer is silly in any sanely designed fantasy, much less reality. After all, why does an all seeing God need to be informed of something?

I don't think the usual conception of prayer is pinned to informing the god of anything; it's about groveling loudly and long enough to persuade that god to give you your way.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Prayer is silly in any sanely designed fantasy, much less reality. After all, why does an all seeing God need to be informed of something?

I don't think the usual conception of prayer is pinned to informing the god of anything; it's about groveling loudly and long enough to persuade that god to give you your way.

Also, in a lot of fantasy the gods aren't at all "all seeing"; the idea that a god is all seeing and all powerful is a Judeo-Christian one, not a part of any universal definition of a god. As well, in some fantasy, gods have other restrictions or rules; for example, in the Chalion novels gods can't reach into the mortal world without a human intermediary. Another example would be Mercedes Lackey's Star-Eyed Goddess, who typically won't even offer help unless one of her followers actually asks; otherwise she lets them solve their own problems.

[Lagmonster]

Do most us worry about our creations in a lab once we are done with the experiment?

Gods might not, but people do. Because we share an environment with our creations, we try to be absolutely certain we keep track of them after we create them. A god who exists independantly of the universe might not have the same need.

Now, say you had a different kind of god - the kind that exists because of belief or needs belief or worship in order to maintain power in the universe. At that point, I'd say that the affairs and concerns of creation becomes of immeasurable importance to said divinity.

[Junghalli]

That was in fact the last philosophical question which killed what remained of my own faith in the Invisible Cloud-Being. A god responsible for the entire universe would, by necessity, be a cosmic-scale being in our terms as I reasoned it then. For such an entity to be concerned about the denizens of one tiny planet around one tiny solar system in one tiny galaxy within such immensity would be akin to my being obsessively concerned with the doings of individual atoms in one of my fingernails. Prayers hoping for its favour or even it's momentary attention to myself would be useless, and from there it was an easy step to the proposition that a universe with an Invisible Cloud-Being was really no different operationally than a universe with no such being at all. Not long after that, it came down to just the universe and nothing else.

Seconded. Go to the Atlas of the Universe website and check out their map of the visible universe. Read the estimated numbers of stars and galaxies it contains. Think about how small we are in that picture. Then contemplate the idea that supposedly the creature that created all that cares deeply about our dietary and sexual habits, and created it all for us.

I think it we ever meet aliens that aren't naturally inclined toward religion they'll think we must be the most egotistical people ever. Really, the conciet of the notion that we'd even matter to such a being is jawdropping.

Yeah, it's possible that God would care about us, but really once you break out of the Abrahamic conditioning the idea just seems ridiculous on its face to me. I find the Deist Watchmaker God vastly more plausible.

[Samuel]

Prayer is silly in any sanely designed fantasy, much less reality. After all, why does an all seeing God need to be informed of something?

I don't think the usual conception of prayer is pinned to informing the god of anything; it's about groveling loudly and long enough to persuade that god to give you your way.

Also, in a lot of fantasy the gods aren't at all "all seeing"; the idea that a god is all seeing and all powerful is a Judeo-Christian one, not a part of any universal definition of a god. As well, in some fantasy, gods have other restrictions or rules; for example, in the Chalion novels gods can't reach into the mortal world without a human intermediary. Another example would be Mercedes Lackey's Star-Eyed Goddess, who typically won't even offer help unless one of her followers actually asks; otherwise she lets them solve their own problems.

Yeah, but there isn't any true distinction between thought and speech for a God, unless they are all hearing.

[Justforfun000]

The only way I can honestly see God as first of all existing and secondly caring about us, would be if we truly were 'souls' first and foremost, and actually have existence beyond this physical world as we know it. In my opinion you would have to think that true 'life', and however you would define that basic essence is a force of permanence is a way that we cannot trace beyond physical death.

Of course this kind of hypothesis leaves far more questions then answers, but it's about the only semi-plausible thing I can think of. Whether reincarnation could be possible, or other planes of existence are real and potentially habitable is another wrinkle to the idea.

I would love to believe the above could be true, but then it begs the question as to why we have so little guidance here on earth that demonstrates any truth to this objectively. Probably the biggest argument I've heard is that it can only be found 'within' and if you are not inclined to go there, you will never experience any development or understanding of such esoteric matters.

I used to read a lot of Edgar Cayce material and at the very least his concepts and wording was fascinating to read. Here's a question/answer in relation to this very subject:

7. (Q) [69]: Please explain what was meant by the spiritual eye, or third eye, in relation to psychic development. Should we today seek to develop this particular facility? If so, how?
(A) As has been given, there is ever a channel or manner in which the expressions of a force may manifest in a material world. Hence the term, "Angels took form", that there might be the expression of, or vehicle for, the activity of an individual force manifestation in the MATERIAL plane. In the psychic forces, or spiritual forces (which are psychic forces), there has ever then been a vehicle, or portion of the anatomical forces of the body, through which the expressions come to individual activity, and these may find various forms of manifestations, or MOVEMENTS of - as has been given, that finds its seat in the creative energies and forces of the body. In the eye, "Let thine eye be SINGLE" may be the interpretation of same, or vehicles, or channels, or glands through which man has lost his vision, or the ability of seeing the self-expression in same in the pituitary forces, as in the lyden and the others - we find expressions in various forms of the body. These become, as has been seen or given, in the feminine body more manifested than ordinarily in the male, in man forces, in that called intuition, or that which is active in that portion of the system. These are but one expression of that portion of the body, for these may be added to by the feeding of same, that partake of other forces of the body in such quantities, or such character of development, as to produce other conditions in the body, as the growing of portions of the body that have become lax, or lacking in their activity in the system, but development in the spiritual sense - by meditation, prayer - dependent upon the external forces, or the creative energies, for its food, rather than upon that which is wholly of the material, develops that as may be termed the psychic development of individuals. Well that psychic forces and occult influences be developed in the individuals that so find within their individual selves that which makes for a closer relationship with that they individually worship as their ideal! That does not indicate that every individual should make of themselves a psychic channel that may be used to their own destruction; for, as has been given, there be many things hard to be understood that many wrest with to their own destruction, but that which gives more understanding of the relationships of self with the creative forces of a universal experience, rather than individual, makes for a closer walk with God, that from which the essence of life itself has its emanation. In the body we find that which connects the pineal, the pituitary, the lyden, may be truly called the silver cord, or the golden cup that may be filled with a closer walk with that which is the creative essence in physical, mental and spiritual life; for the destruction wholly of either will make for the disintegration of the soul from its house of clay. To be purely material minded, were an anatomical or pathological study made for a period of seven years (which is a cycle of change in all the body-elements) of one that is acted upon through the third eye alone, we will find one fed upon spiritual things becomes a light that may shine from and in the darkest corner. One fed upon the purely material will become a Frankenstein that is without a concept of any influence other than material or mental

[Mayabird]

Now when I think about it, assuming an infinite possibility of gods that could exist (including anywhere between zero and infinity gods existing...maybe even negative gods but I can't figure out how that would work), there would exist a possibility of god(s) that would care about us humans. And everything else in its/their universe, like plasma and sentient robots and so on as well. There would also exist a possibility of a dickish god that only cares about humans or one subset of humans (say, the Westboro Phelps clan), just plain evil gods that want to destroy everything for some reason, and a god that does nothing but breakdance for all eternity. Not even caring about species that independently learn to breakdance or individual dancers, just itself.

Without any extra information while we're just making up crazy shit working with infinite possibilities, there's no real room for assuming anything.

[AniThyng]

Depends upon whether or not you believe this being specifically created us. If yes, then it seems reasonable to suppose that we're of interest. If no, then possibly not.

Do most us worry about our creations in a lab once we are done with the experiment?

I don't know about you, but if God was anything like me when I play Simcity, he's instigated World War 3 a dozen times for shit and giggles and reset the world afterwords so he can see what inventive new ways we come up with to aid our self-extinction.

[Kitsune]

I don't know about you, but if God was anything like me when I play Simcity, he's instigated World War 3 a dozen times for shit and giggles and reset the world afterwords so he can see what inventive new ways we come up with to aid our self-extinction.

Maybe that is what happened in the Old Testament

[Sela]

There can't realistically be functionally-discrete, multiple-to-infinite, omnipotent gods. If god A desired a tree's existence and god B did not then one of three things must happen:

1.) Either god A or B must yield their will to the other - - - compromise.
OR
2.) They would both seek to exert their will, one limiting the other.
OR
3.) They would both successfully exert their will and would create a paradox: the tree would both be and not be at once.


In the case of Number two: The fact that something was able to stop an "omnipotent" god proves that He wasn't omni-potent to begin with. If god A can *stop* god B from exerting its will, then god B is certainly not omnipotent; though perhaps god A is - that would remain to be seen. That same claim can't yet be made from the one who wasn't stopped (god A).

In the case of Number three: we have a problem. With omnipotence comes the ability to do the impossible (all-powerful; including what can't be done). So the paradox is set. That said, these gods are *both* omnipotent and so their abilities would not only exceed our understanding, but would match each others. This means that the paradox (it is and is not) is not a stable equilibrium for them. They could *continue* to negate each others is/isn't tree state until eternity, *or* until situation 2 resulted. Since our world is not full of paradoxes, I conclude this is not the case.

This leaves option one. While I can't necessarily refute that omnipotent gods might be able to reach absolute compromise on everything, at that point you got to ask well who cares then? If gods are all identical in their chosen actions (ie: their function) then for all intents and purposes "God's *will*" is one. They no longer serve discrete functions - and so these gods are no longer functionally discrete - violating the condition set forth in the opening premise.

That's how i see it, at any rate. Now non-omnipotent gods? well that's another story (ref. Greeks)

[ray245]

Well, a depressing way to look at things is to say we are nothing more than a story created to let other gods enjoy. That all the wars and suffering is purely for the entertainment for other gods, and to them, creating a story with all the suffering and cruelty does not have a tangible harm so to them, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Darth Wong]

It's counterproductive to try to imagine what such a creature would think by using Aristotelian abstract reasoning. It makes more sense to look at the world and ask ourselves if there is an evidence that this god cares about us, and there really isn't. The Black Plague alone was a good indicator of that.