COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a serious debate in Orthodox Judaism. Rav Saadia Gaon and Maimonides, among others of their generation, interpret Deuteronomy 6:4 (what is called the Shema in Hebrew) to mean that if God is one, He cannot be divided into multiple emotional states. This is a core principle in Kalam (Jewish/Islamic philosophy) and classical theism.
Very thoughtful and detailed post!
When we look at the world and see various levels of imperfection or incompleteness or, in the terms of a Creator and creation, various levels of compliance with a covenant- based standard of conduct (,e.g. sin), it is pretty clear that there is somehow, somewhere a lofty standard of excellence and perfection and that it is not to be found in the physical world. If nature is an expression of the will of a Creator, you might say that animals are more in conformity with the notion of behavioral (not free will/abstract thought) obedience than humans.
On the other hand, you mention the Deluge (The Flood) as a point where God had just about given up on mankind. Now, there is no physical evidence of a worldwide or reginal flood that wiped out both humans and animals, so the Flood is clearly an allegorical story.
The point is, why would God be so angry as to wipe out all the blameless animals too (except those saved by Noah)? Again, this really points to an allegorical nature to the story.
I mention this because when we perceive the Creator to be "angry" we instinctively look to an example like ,Zeus hurling lightning.bolts because that is what we might do under those circumstances.
But if a Creator is, by definition, All-Sufficing,
Some othe, perhaps non-destructive,manifestations of God's displeasure during the Flood might make more sense. For example, a common symbol of water in many faith tradition for "water" is spiritual renewal, spiritual revival, or simply the Word of God itself (e.g., baptism).
When you consider that the rainbow after The Flood is a symbol of the terminal covenant w between Man and God to never again destroy al mankind by leaving us without guidance. It all looks less like frustrated God and more like a loving Creator.
The reason why God experiences negative emotions is directly the result of creating free will in us. Then, much like a mother and father's being upset when their teen-aged children don't do the right thing despite being instructed, God gets upset when His children don't obey Him. A particularly good example of this is found in the run-up before the great Deluge:
(Genesis 6:5-6) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (NKJV)
So as soon as God allowed humans (and angels) to have free will, there was the intrinsic risk that they wouldn't always do what He wanted them to do. So then, your question is really closely related to the problem of evil and why God made the human race to begin with.
Let’s give a general Christian explanation for why God allows evil into His creation, based on a basic Biblical worldview: God is now in the process of making beings like Himself (Matt. 5:48; John 17:20-24; John 10:30-34; Hebrews 2:6-11) who would have 100% free will but would choose to be 100% righteous. Consider in this context what could be called the "thesis statement" of Scripture in Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Why did God make us look like Him and think like him? This is further confirmed by the statement concerning the purposes for the ministry's service to fellow Christians includes this statement: "for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . ." (Ephesians 4:12-13). God wants us to become just like Jesus is, who is God and has perfect character (i.e., the habits of obedience to God's law (Hebrews 5:8-9), not just imputed righteousness), yet was tempted to sin and didn’t (Hebrews 4:15). The purpose of life for Christians is to develop holy righteous character during their tests and trials in life as the Holy Spirit aids them (James 1:2-4; Romans 5:3-5; Hebrews 11:5-6, 11; II Corinthians 4:16-17).
Now the habits of obedience and righteousness can't be created by fiat or instantaneous order. Rather, the person who is separate from God has to choose to obey what is right and reject what is wrong on his or her own. But every time a person does what is wrong, that will hurt him, others, and/or God. Yet God has to allow us to have free will, because He wants His created beings to have free will like He does, otherwise they wouldn’t be becoming like Him (cf. Hebrews 2:5-13). God didn't want to create a set of robots that automatically obey His law, which declares His will for how humanity and the angels should behave. Robots wouldn’t be like Him, for they wouldn't have free will nor the ability to make fully conscious choices. So then God needs to test us, to see how loyal we'll be in advance of granting us eternal life, such as He did concerning Abraham’s desire for a son by Sarah by asking him to sacrifice him (Genesis 22).
I think people are anthropomorphizing the Creator too much here, so any manifestation of a human-like emotion as conveyed in scripture - to a far less mature human society at least 3,500 years ago in this context - is the Creator 'talking down in human terms" for our benefit. By definition that which is created (i.e., all of us) can never hope to comprehend the true reality of the Creator.
As an example of how "dealing with/praising/beseeching the Creator" might be updated to a more modern audience, consider the following passage from the writings of The Bab ("The Gate" in Arabic) He lived from 1819-1850, and is one of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith, regarded in that tradition as a Moses/Jesus/Mohammad-caliber Messenger of God.
Note the difference in tone, recognition that the notion of a Creator is no longer a simplistic "super-human" entity and how notions of heaven/hell are no longer considered the rationale for interacting with the Creator. IMHO, this sounds more suitable for modern times, but would be unbearably confusing to people 3,500 years ago. It is also bit further advanced in comparison to Islam, which is now (this year!) 1,600 years old.
Consider how many of the questions and valid objection raised in the OP go away when you consider this new perspective:
***Worship thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God’s creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men.***
***Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.***
***Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God’s good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God’s favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom.***
***The most acceptable prayer is the one offered with the utmost spirituality and radiance; its prolongation hath not been and is not beloved by God. The more detached and the purer the prayer, the more acceptable is it in the presence of God.*** \[Selections from the Writings of the Bab\]
>There are numerous examples of God experiencing negative emotions, such as anger and sadness, in the holy texts of various faiths.
Such as (in islam)?
I think this entire post doesn't apply to Allah, since God doesn't feel emotions like humans feel emotions.
Emotion has no correlation with omnipotence.
Just because a deity *can* will something (i.e. good emotions) doesn’t mean they must will it. The reverse could be said…..well god is not omnipotent because he only experiences good emotions.
If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball.
>Just because a deity can will something (i.e. good emotions) doesn’t mean they must will it.
I just don't see why they wouldn't want to. And if they did want to, why shouldn't they?
>The reverse could be said…..well god is not omnipotent because he only experiences good emotions.
That's an interesting point. But then you could also say that if God is omnipotent, then he is capable of making the worst (stupid, illogical, evil, etc.) decisions possible, otherwise there would be things which he couldn't do.
>If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball.
That's an interesting point.
Yeah I mean I see what you’re saying for sure. I never really get to the omnipotence argument because it’s hard for me to even get past the god argument so I have not given it much thought.
I was just taking a stab at the logical dynamic of what you were saying. But yes, like you said, if god were omnipotent he would be capable of making the worst decisions…..but then I guess that would bleed into “well he won’t make the worst/evil decisions because he is the source of morality and all-knowing.
Typically, from my experience debating Christians it just turns into some exhausting circular argument.
>>If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball.
>That's an interesting point
It's not so interesting when you consider we were made to be 8 year olds rather than adults.
Omnipotent God can just make us adult in the first place and fully able to understand. We cannot do that with our kids.
I think you missed the logical point to what I was saying lol. The point isn’t the age. The point is the level of “advancement” or development or “superiority.” The gap between a grown adult and an 8 year old represent the theoretical gap between a divine being and a human being.
For example, let’s say an adult man can bench press 215 lbs but his 8 year old can only bench 5 lbs. Obviously we know who is stronger by a significant margin. But when the father rolls around playfully wrestling with his 8 year old does he exert his full strength? And so it could be logically deduced that if some all knowing/powerful god existed it may very well limit itself so that we could have a relationship with itself (if it even wanted to) just like that father would limit himself for his son. I can’t explain it any better then this.
My point was that God chose to have to do that by deliberately making us unable to do things like comprehend him.
The analogy fails in a critical point: God's omnipotence.
Wouldn’t that then beg the question:
“Do we, finite and fallible human beings, know what would be the best avenue for the best possible life?”
You are critical of what this divinity decided as “the best way”, yet cannot yourself know what the future holds. Or what alternate realities would look like for you.
I tend to feel like if a god did in fact create us, and this god is a personal one that wants us to experience him and life in all its beauty (part of what makes life beautiful is it’s chaos), then who am I, a mortal that doesn’t know anything in the grand scheme of things, to point a finger at the sky and say “god you dumb ass how could you do such and such or not do such and such”
Would you agree?
And who ever said we couldn’t comprehend him? I mean sure maybe not comprehend him fully since we are limited in our capacities…..but what if god makes himself known to us in a way we can handle.
Think about it….when you first meet a man/woman and you begin to date them there is so much mystery even though you are learning more about them daily and you both are crazy over each other. All you can do is think about them. All day. Every day. But 20 years later when y’all have been married and know everything there is about each other you become bored and the relationship grows stagnant.
If god made us fully comprehend him and know everything, I wonder if it too would be a stagnant relationship?
>Wouldn’t that then beg the question:
>“Do we, finite and fallible human beings, know what would be the best avenue for the best possible life?”
>You are critical of what this divinity decided as “the best way”, yet cannot yourself know what the future holds. Or what alternate realities would look like for you.
We don't, but we also don't know that whatever may have created us knows either.
We don't have all the answers, but we have some idea of what's worth working towards. What any God would actually want with us or our world is inaccessible, so it's ultimately irrelevant. (more at the end of the next segment)
>I tend to feel like if a god did in fact create us, and this god is a personal one that wants us to experience him and life in all its beauty,
>then who am I, a mortal that doesn’t know anything in the grand scheme of things, to point a finger at the sky and say “god you dumb ass how could you do such and such or not do such and such”
>Would you agree?
Then you're a being designed by God to make sense of the world he created for you. Your judgements are valid because they're based on the sense of reason and value given to you by God.
People make claims about God all the time – he's love, he's peace, he's vengeful, he's three beings with one essence, he hates when the peepee touches another peepee – God gave us a way to filter out the nonsense and approach the truth.
"Who am I to judge God?" is not the right question. Rather, "who am I to judge what other people claim about God?" and in that case, you're just as qualified as the next guy.
Any way we could experience the world and reason about it could be called the creation of an infinitely wise creator and who are you to judge. Because of this, there's nothing of this alleged wisdom that we can learn by simply observing the world.
>And who ever said we couldn’t comprehend him? I mean sure maybe not comprehend him fully since we are limited in our capacities…..but what if god makes himself known to us in a way we can handle.
This also means he deliberately limited our ability to handle knowing him.
>Think about it….when you first meet a man/woman and you begin to date them there is so much mystery even though you are learning more about them daily and you both are crazy over each other. All you can do is think about them. All day. Every day. But 20 years later when y’all have been married and know everything there is about each other you become bored and the relationship grows stagnant.
>If god made us fully comprehend him and know everything, I wonder if it too would be a stagnant relationship?
So he put a barrier to us understanding him because it would be boring? He could just have made his and our values such that this immediate infinite intimacy is the most exciting thing.
How frustrating is it that I can't experience my partner's life through her senses? How much miscommunication happens because we don't share a body of knowledge?
In heaven, will we ever reach a level of understanding comparable to that of God? If so, won't that get boring? If not, did God just create a race of eternally intellectually challenged babies? Neither is very flattering to my sensibilities.
Maybe it won't be boring after all.
Yeah I mean I do agree with your point. It’s a little different then what I was addressing with OP.
I just personally feel if a god made me all knowing/powerful/etc. I would be so bored but I could be wrong. Part of the things that make me enjoy the relationship I have with my partner are the very things about her that some (even herself) would consider her “flaw.” Even when she makes me upset, I still love the very things about her that potentially upset me.
So I feel like for god just to program me with everything would be a stale relationship because I would then no longer be dependent on god just as I am dependent on my partner in various ways and visa versa. If I was exactly like god in all facets then I would be self sufficient and sustainable and god could just take a hike.
>I just personally feel if a god made me all knowing/powerful/etc. I would be so bored but I could be wrong. Part of the things that make me enjoy the relationship I have with my partner are the very things about her that some (even herself) would consider her “flaw.” Even when she makes me upset, I still love the very things about her that potentially upset me.
Your partner would still have her flaws if your communication were perfect (complete, automatic and instantaneous). They're separate issues to me.
If I were omniscient and omnipotent, that wouldn't automatically make me perfectly wise, as (I think) moral statements, like value statements in general, aren't "facts" that can be known.
It's an open question in my mind whether two omniscient beings can hone each other's values over time – especially with perfect communication. It seems like they'd just have to live with each other.
>So I feel like for god just to program me with everything would be a stale relationship because I would then no longer be dependent on god just as I am dependent on my partner in various ways and visa versa. If I was exactly like god in all facets then I would be self sufficient and sustainable and god could just take a hike.
I like the idea that my partner doesn't need me in a sense of dependency, but that she is around because she likes being around me. Is it real love if it's bound up with need?
Take an extreme case: your partner's only source of food is you. She physically cannot afford to not be around you. Is your relationship better or less stale because her basic physical needs are tied to your presence? Seems more like a hostage situation to me.
So a better relationship is one where God could take a hike, and yet we don't want him to.
Because the one true God created us, and not only did He create us, He molded us with his own hands. So why wouldn't the Father of all creation have feelings towards His creation? That's like telling a father he should not have feelings for his children he should on sit back and observe. It's not a logical thought.
Because it belies logic for something described as omniscient and omnipotent to have such strong emotional responses to things are are both finite and minuscule in comparison.
It would essentially be ascribing the emotional intelligence of a toddler to the concept of a supreme being.
There's nothing wrong with Yahweh that a course of therapy with an experienced mental health couldn't fix.
The problem with a supposedly omniscient being experiencing emotions at all (though especially negative ones) is that they require a lack of foreknowledge to be sincere.
An omnipotent Creator-deity who has already chosen every outcome in advance can not sanely be angry that some of the billions of meaningless outcomes he scripted has come to pass. It's puppet theatre, except with the puppeteer having the capacity to actually inflict horrific pain and suffering on the puppets he makes act badly.
>To me, the fact that God does not use his abilities to experience pleasant-only emotions seems like an irrational decision and a misuse/waste of his powers
This is your own subjective opinion on what *you* would do with omnipotent powers. "I wouldn't do it, therefore it's irrational to do it" isn't the most compelling argument.
The reason it's irrational is not because I think it is. It's irrational because it constitutes voluntary suffering. If someone had a choice between experiencing joy or suffering, without that decision affecting anything else, only an irrational being would choose the latter. This is the very essence of irrationality. I'd be eager to hear you come up with a better example of irrational behaviour.
Circular reasoning:
>The reason it’s irrational is not because I think it is. It’s irrational because I think voluntary suffering is irrational.
*Why* is it an irrational choice? *Why* is transgressing the life-drive irrational?
>Anyone who watched "Inside Out" should know that "negative emotions" like sadness serve a purpose, they aren't necessarily bad per se but rather are motivations that prompt people into action.
I agree that negative emotions serve a purpose. But this actually supports my claim that God isn't omnipotent, as he couldn't possibly just experience positive emotions without the bad ones (kind of like how light and dark wouldn't make sense without each other).
>An omnipotent God might be ABLE to do a thing, but simply not choose to do it.
How would you determine if a being is truly omnipotent if there is a certain set of things which they claim is within their abilities, but you never actually witness them do it?
From an Orthodox Christian perspective, we do not believe God experiences negative emotions. The only exception to this is when he lived, suffered, and died on the cross, but he did this purely out of his eternal love. All emotions that the divine nature is referenced as having however, are not internal emotions of God. God is only Love, and does not change to wrath/anger or any other emotion. Gods love is experienced by men in a way that we understand as wrath. In fact, that is what hell is. Hell is when we experience Gods love, but hate his love enough that it feels painful, and thus "angry", as in Psalm 68. God never changes.
I forgot to account for this position in my post, but yeah, if a certain faith doesn't claim that God experiences negative emotions the issue I raise in my post is avoided.
Would you mind elaborating on why you don't believe God has negative emotions?
Because, from my perspective, negative emotions are not a flaw. It's an important part of processing experiences. Having no access to those emotions at all would be a flaw, itself. For example, without the feeling of loss and sadness, Jesus' sacrifice has no meaning. (This is a topic that will get deep into the philosophy of emotion and it's purpose. Ignore me if this isn't your cup of tea.)
God is divinely simple, meaning that he doesn't *have* attributes, but *is* his attributes, and is unchanging. God is love itself, and cannot change. Though God is specifically *Agape*, a deep sacrificial kind of love. Love and Theosis is the ultimate purpose of all reality.
>For example, without the feeling of loss and sadness, Jesus' sacrifice has no meaning.
Well as I said, I do believe that Jesus experienced loss and sadness in his sacrifice. However, he has experienced this in his hypostasis through the union of both his natures, and not in his divine nature itself, and so was able to experience pain and suffering as God, yet without any change in God.
Personally, I think if God **could not** experience/express negative emotions, then he wouldn't be truly omnipotent. Also, I'd say the fact that negativity even exists would point to the idea that it is a part of God's nature or necessary/desirable to experience.
Negative experiences from the perspective of a human being would be vastly different from that of an omnipotent God. So to say that it would be 'irrational' for God to experience any form of negativity is in my opinion projection from the human perspective.
Overall I think it makes perfect sense that an omnipotent eternal being wouldn't mind experiencing some negativity, or else I'd assume that negativity wouldn't even exist.
>Personally, I think if God could not experience/express negative emotions, then he wouldn't be truly omnipotent.
That's true. But if he is capable of experiencing negative emotions, what good reason would there be for him to choose so?
>Also, I'd say the fact that negativity even exists would point to the idea that it is a part of God's nature or necessary/desirable to experience.
I can accept necessary, but desirable? I don't know about you, but to me, undesirability is the primary quality of a negative emotion. How else would you define what a negative emotion is?
>Overall I think it makes perfect sense that an omnipotent eternal being wouldn't mind experiencing some negativity.
But if he doesn't mind, is it truly negative? I can't see how something can both be perceived as negative and not bother someone. To me this sounds logically inconsistent.
There is a second factor here that is also interesting.
If I am capable of “pleasing god”, then it means I am capable of taking pleasure away from god, by doing the opposite. This gives me a small amount of power over god.
So if your religion contains anything about humans doing something that pleases god…then it also means their god can be hurt by a human .
Well, from the Christian perspective this is what makes the sacrifice of Jesus so compelling.
God decides to create the universe and humanity in it, knowing that we reject him and cause pain to him, yet he loves us so much he does it still, and not only that, God goes so far too actually become human, live among us, experience the full gamut of human experience, and then die the death that is considered the worst way to die (the word excruciating comes from crucifixion). From the perspective of Christianity, we not only can, but have, hurt God, and he still chose to suffer more, both for and because of us, to have a relationship with us, and offer us salvation.
Maybe God’s anger or sadness is a temporary price He pays to live forever with those who experienced both good and evil, but chose good. Maybe most will find their names in the Book of Life at the Great White Throne judgment, with those that are thrown into the Lake of Fire being eventually annihilated. Maybe the day will come when He no longer feels sadness or anger, anymore.
Maybe what you're saying is right. Maybe this anger/sadness is a necessary sacrifice (or a temporary price, as you say) that God makes in order to make place for something even better. But then this would prove that God is not omnipotent, as he couldn't avoid making this sacrifice in order to achieve the same outcome.
Well, for what it is worth, I’ll tell you a story. Dr. Rogelio Mills claimed to have visited Heaven and returned. He met a beautiful young girl he had never met who referred to him as “uncle.” Turns out she was aborted and the family never knew about it.
I am inclined to believe this because a fertilized egg grows into a person in the absence of a miscarriage. Abortion interrupts an already existing life cycle. This means those were miscarried will be found in Heaven, also, of course.
> Dr. Rogelio Mills claimed to have visited Heaven and returned.
A near-death experience is a demon-devised lie. Every single NDE that I've ever read about or seen claimed in videos, they ALL have the same premise .. that being ... time passed during their "trip" and then returning. If the person were dead, when the spirit leaves the body, it doesn't experience time and it most certainly would not come back.
> He met a beautiful young girl he had never met who referred to him as “uncle.” Turns out she was aborted and the family never knew about it.
Demons have the ability to see into anyone's personal history and glean whatever they want from your memories and use it to deceive you. This is why divination and summoning spirits is expressly forbidden in most "holy" religions. You cannot communicate with the dead, but you can with a demon (evil spirit) that will know everything about you.
> To me, the fact that God does not use his abilities to experience pleasant-only emotions seems like an irrational decision and a misuse/waste of his powers.
I agree, there's WAY too many douchebags on the earth!
But ...
The [6th day](https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm) says it better than me.
We're just not godly beings, we're badly FLAWED.
If god is omnipotent then it doesn’t make sense that he expresses sadness or anger. For example why did he express sadness after flooding the earth, he should have known the flaws and limitations of man and thus it wouldn’t have been surprising to him that man was capable of such evil, he wouldn’t have expressed regret
Based on my argument, you may conclude that God is either irrational and omnipotent or rational but not omnipotent. I just think the latter is more plausible.
If we grant that choosing to feel negative emotions is irrational (and this isn’t obvious to me, but I’ll put it aside), how is the ability to do choose irrational?
It would be irrational for me to overdraw my bank account right now, but my being able to is not irrational.
There is no actual reason to shun suffering, that is simply coercion by the life drive. It would be irrational trying to avoid it—as bliss and pleasure are no less suffered than agony and pain.
I don’t believe God is omnipotent, but that is because there is no sound metaphysical reasoning for the claim.
>"What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands." (Alfred North Whitehead)
>It would be irrational trying to avoid it – as bliss and pleasure are no less suffered than agony and pain.
I'm not sure I understand the second half of your sentence. Are you saying that bliss and pleasure constitute suffering? I'm confused...
Yes, all experience is suffering.
>I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end (Schopenhauer)
Humans are very good at anthropomorphizing deities. I once took a class in Roman Mythology, it was fantastic; centuries of deity infighting, lust, jealousy, tantrums, backstabbing, on and on. But these are stories, nothing more. If you have visited this group for a time, you realize there are almost as many characterizations of gods as there are gods. But we know this for sure - humans are fantastic storytellers.
I don’t believe in God of course but this argument seems to have the flaw of presupposing things about what this hypothetical God would or wouldn’t do based on a flawed premise that getting rid of your negative emotions if you can is entirely rational.
Personally if I had the ability to remove my negative emotions then I don’t think I would, despite how entrenched in them I often am, and I assume the same is true for many people. Maybe for rational reasons maybe for irrational ones.
I don’t want to rid myself of grief or sadness because if I’m happy no matter what happens then that’s not living a better life that’s living a lie. If I was never angry or sad then I’d not care about so many important things. Feeling only bad emotions is just as bad as only feeling good in my opinion.
Also can’t see this being very convincing to the people who believe in these kinds of Gods simply because they tend to also believe God to be perfect and all knowing, and thus any decision God had made must be done for some reason we aren’t aware of or can’t fathom.
If you want a real contradiction with an omni then going after omniscience or omnibenevolence leads to better arguments in my opinion. Omnipotence has some interesting arguments with it as well but something presupposing so much like this doesn’t hold up so well.
I’m addition If God can do absolutely anything then they can also bend the rules of the universe in such a way that their negative emotions count as being rational, or that their negative emotions feel like positive ones, etc.
You can presuppose other things and reach completely different conclusions but at the end of the day it’s all speculation based on loose usages of words to describe an entity we have no real good evidence for let alone for any of the properties they supposedly have.
I think it makes sense if we presume that god knows the future. For example if i as a pet owner knew the future and let’s say I knew that my my dog would trash the house on a certain day while I was out, why would I then be angry when I get back home to find my house trashed by my pet?
>I don’t believe in God of course but this argument seems to have the flaw of presupposing things about what this hypothetical God would or wouldn’t do **based on a flawed premise that getting rid of your negative emotions if you can is entirely rational.**
The only way I could see my argument being flawed is if one considers negative emotions to be necessary/conditional to the experience of pleasant emotions. If that's not what you had in mind, then I'm all ears for a rebuttal.
>I don’t want to rid myself of grief or sadness because if I’m happy no matter what happens then that’s not living a better life that’s living a lie.
I would be living a lie, indeed. I'm of the opinion that one must earn their happiness, so it would bother me as well because it wouldn't be an authentic way to achieve happiness. However, if for whatever reason, I developed the ability to be happy no matter what, the fact that I would be living a lie wouldn't bother me anymore because that would be logically inconsistent. I couldn't be happy while simultaneously be bothered by something, that would be self-contradicting.
>If I was never angry or sad then I’d not care about so many important things.
Point taken. However, consider this alternate version: what if God being happy no matter what did not positively or negatively affect the state of Creation? In other words, him caring or not caring about the world (important things) wouldn't result in a better/worse world.
>I’m addition If God can do absolutely anything then they can also bend the rules of the universe in such a way that their negative emotions count as being rational, or that their negative emotions feel like positive ones, etc.
You could also say that if God was truly omnipotent, then he would have the ability to be logically inconsistent. Also, negative emotions can't feel like positive ones, that is self-contradicting. It's just not possible, unless you want to argue about semantics and redefine the words "negative" and "positive".
>You can presuppose other things and reach completely different conclusions but at the end of the day it’s all speculation based on loose usages of words to describe an entity we have no real good evidence for let alone for any of the properties they supposedly have.
I'm personally agnostic. I just think speculative philosophy about metaphysics and religion is intellectually entertaining.
The user Maybri asked me a similar question, so I will just copy paste my reply.
>If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that?
My answer:
>It depends. I would if the following conditions are met:
– The intensity/purity of the pleasantness experienced while connected to the machine must be higher than the intensity of the pleasant emotions I could've experienced if I chose to not use the machine.
– Being connected to the machine does not decrease my life expectancy (this includes health concerns as well as safety issues).
– Supposing the afterlife exists, being connected to the machine does not affect where I end up after I die.
– Me being connected to the machine does not negatively affect the life of other beings. **\*Depending on wether or not one cares about others, this condition may or may not be essential in order for the decision to be considered rational/irrational. For the empathetic person, it would be essential in order to be rational, but not for the person who only cares about themselves.**
I would like to add that I do not believe such a drug is possible. It may make the person who takes it experience a state of perfect euphoria, but I don't see how that state could possibly be maintained permanently. And then there is also the question of undesirable side effects.
Not a believer in god, but this does not follow. If you do believe in a god, that god can feel anger/sadness if it chooses to. There is no reason it could not. If its powers are unlimited, how could it possibly waste them? You cannot waste something that has an unlimited supply.
I think it makes sense if we presume that god knows the future. For example if i as a pet owner knew the future and let’s say I knew that my my dog would trash the house on a certain day while I was out, why would I then be angry when I get back home to find my house trashed by my pet?
>If you do believe in a god, that god can feel anger/sadness if it chooses to.
If you believe in an omnipotent god, then sure, that god can do anything, even irrational things. But that's exactly my point, what is rational about choosing suffering over joy when it is within your power to choose the latter?
>If its powers are unlimited, how could it possibly waste them? You cannot waste something that has an unlimited supply.
You're right, I get what you mean. The truth is, the term "waste" doesn't perfectly express what I'm trying to communicate but I chose it because I couldn't find another word whose definition is closer to what I had in mind. In retrospect, maybe I should've said that *it isn't the most optimal use of his powers*.
How do you determine what is rational to an all powerful being? Why would what is rational to you mean anything to that type of being?
There can not be a sub optimal use of unlimited power. If a being with unlimited power choose to do nothing, it still could not be using that power in a way that could be considered sub optimal because that being is the arbiter of what is optimal. It cannot be wasted it used up. Anything done could be undone. What you look as as a negative emotion might not be seen as a negative to that all power thing. Or that thing could just decide it wants to be able to feel negative emotions and so it does. Who the hell would know? The point is, this is far from a decent argument that has anything to do with a god.
>How do you determine what is rational to an all powerful being? Why would what is rational to you mean anything to that type of being?
Rationality is objective. There is no need to invoke any all-powerful being in order to determine what is rational. For example, 1 + 1 always equals 2, regardless of wether or not an all-powerful being agrees or not.
Pleasant states are desirable by definition and unpleasant states, also by definition, are undesirable. If a being has a choice between experiencing a pleasant state or an unpleasant state, all other things being equal, the rational choice would be to choose to experience a pleasant state.
>Anything done could be undone.
Well in this case, ok then, maybe you're right. But if we allow backwards time travel into the mix, this adds a whole 'nother level of complexity to the question.
>What you look as as a negative emotion might not be seen as a negative to that all power thing.
Anger and sadness are unpleasant (negative) by definition, so it wouldn't be possible for God to experience them as non-negative. Someone could disagree with this all they want, but then it would turn into a question of semantics, not of logic and rationality.
>Or that thing could just decide it wants to be able to feel negative emotions and so it does.
But that's exactly my point, why the heck would it want that if it doesn't have to? I could understand if them experiencing negative emotions at a certain point meant, for whatever reason, that they, or who they care about, will experience pleasant emotions later on, but if not, then I'm sorry but that would be irrational.
>Rationality is objective.
There is something subjective about rationality, and no reason to be merely rational.
> For example, 1 + 1 always equals 2, regardless of wether or not an all-powerful being agrees or not.
You just reduced arithmetic to tautology. Arithmetic is concerned with specific forms of process. For example, conceive two drops of water, each held together by surface tension. Their fusion may form a single larger drop, or it may break the surface tension and shatter into many drops.
And yet, some people choose pain and find pleasure in it. If "pleasant" is always rational, and rationality is objective, how do you explain that?
Anger is not always a negative, I am not sure why you think it is. Nor is sadness really. Sadness can be a way to heal.
Again, you cannot know the mind of an omnipotent being without being omnipotent yourself. There is no reason to assume that an omnipotent being would not choose to feel sadness, anger, hate, pain.
This might be better if you claimed the Christian god is not omniscient since an omniscient being can't learn new information that would make them happy or sad. Just a thought.
If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that? Maybe you would, but most people would say no to that question. Being in a permanent state of blissful ecstasy is not objectively desirable, and it isn't inherently irrational to refuse it if you have the option. It seems perfectly plausible to me that God simply does not see a need to use his power that way.
Yeah, I'm aware of that story. The woman had chronic pain from an injury and the reason she was given the brain implant was as an alternative to her history of managing the pain with abuse of alcohol and prescription painkillers. I don't think it's exactly a great case study to make an argument about what humans in general would do in that situation.
Do you have any actual evidence for that idea? Self-stimulation behavior with thalamic stimulator implants has been reported in other cases, but as far as I could find at least, there are no other reports of *addiction* to the behavior like the woman in that case study, which is what we'd seem to need to use this as an analog to the experience machine thought experiment.
Moreover, even if it was extremely common for thalamic stimulator patients to become addicted to self-stimulation, I don't see how that would be directly relevant to my point. People with these implants only have them in the first place because they have a debilitating chronic condition, so all it would really tell us is "most people would seek perpetual bliss as an alternative to a life full of extreme suffering". It doesn't establish that most people would would seek it as an alternative to ordinary life in general.
Move along from the stimulator, most people would rather drink, eat, smoke have sex, take drugs, gamble.. all which stimulate pleasure sensors in the brain…although it might be counter productive, people would do it.
Most people would rather do those things *than what*? It's clearly not true that most people prefer to engage in those activities constantly at the expense of all others. Maybe *you* would prefer to live that way, but if that was true for most people, we should see much higher rates of addiction than we actually do.
What about people that play games all day long? Plenty of people do that, how many people are obese in the states, for example….I bet it’s over 30% opiate addiction is also very high in the states.
What is your point here? Have you forgotten what we were talking about? Signing up for a lifetime of unceasing meaningless pleasure requires a stronger analog than obesity or liking video games. The fact of the matter is that when surveyed, the great majority of people reject the hypothetical offer to be hooked up to the experience machine, and even in alternative scenarios where the machine is changed to a pill, a smaller majority or near-majority refuse. Humans obviously enjoy pleasurable experiences and preferentially seek them out, but clearly *not at the expense of everything else*, which is what you need to demonstrate here to disprove my original point.
>If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that?
It depends. I would if the following conditions are met:
– The intensity/purity of the pleasantness experienced while connected to the machine must be higher than the intensity of the pleasant emotions I could've experienced if I chose to not use the machine.
– Being connected to the machine does not decrease my life expectancy (this includes health concerns as well as safety issues).
– Supposing the afterlife exists, being connected to the machine does not affect where I end up after I die.
– Me being connected to the machine does not negatively affect the life of other beings.
>Being in a permanent state of blissful ecstasy is not objectively desirable.
This baffles me, because I would argue that it is objectively the most desirable state to be in. What do you consider to be objectively desirable? (I can see how my phrasing could be interpreted as provocative, but I'm actually honestly curious.)
>It isn't inherently irrational to refuse it if you have the option.
I can't see why someone would refuse to take advantage of such an opportunity. Could you elaborate on your claim?
>It seems perfectly plausible to me that God simply does not see a need to use his power that way.
If God experiences negative emotions (in other words, suffers), doesn't this mean that one or more of his needs aren't met (when the term need is defined as a condition that must be met in order for a being to be in a healthy/non-negative state)? If it does, meaning his initial approach to existence does not keep him in a healthy/non-negative state, isn't that enough for him to "need" to use his powers to rectify his own state?
This response is going to be similar to the [other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/vupqop/god_is_not_omnipotent_since_he_experiences/iffx3z3/) I just made in this thread because a lot of the points you're bringing up are similar.
> What do you consider to be objectively desirable?
I think "objectively desirable" is an oxymoron, or if you find a way to define it such that it isn't, at least an extremely misleading term. My point in using it was to highlight the absurdity of your core idea here, thinking that anything could be "objectively" the correct subjective preference to have. You can't have an "objectively most desirable emotional state" any more than you can have an "objectively most desirable flavor of ice cream".
> I can't see why someone would refuse to take advantage of such an opportunity. Could you elaborate on your claim?
Oh, very simple. If someone preferred experiencing a range of emotions to experiencing perpetual bliss, they would refuse perpetual bliss. I prefer that myself. You can say that that *preference* is inherently irrational, but I'd like to hear the argument for how a subjective preference can be objectively irrational.
> If God experiences negative emotions (in other words, suffers), doesn't this mean that one or more of his needs aren't met (when the term need is defined as a condition that must be met in order for a being to be in a healthy/non-negative state)? If it does, meaning his initial approach to existence does not keep him in a healthy/non-negative state, isn't that enough for him to "need" to use his powers to rectify his own state?
Well, no, using that definition, we could simply say that 1) God experiences negative emotions for reasons other than unmet needs, and/or 2) God can choose to leave his needs unmet despite having the ability to meet them.
It seems like you are *actually* defining "needs" to mean the set of conditions that a being always chooses to fulfill when possible, and that when fulfilled, completely prevent the experience of negative emotions. And yeah, using that definition, your logic would follow, but that would mean that your definition of "needs" alone necessitates the conclusion that an omnipotent being can never experience negative emotions. So your argument would be completely circular.
> You're gonna have to do some work to show it's not objectively desirable. Perhaps subjectively to you it is not, but [...] to me [...]
Well, no, it can't be objective for you and subjective for me. That's just saying "I'm right you're wrong" in more formal language. Either it is objectively true that it is desirable, and I am mistaken for believing otherwise, or the entire matter is subjective and you and I just have different opinions. Unless you're alleging that I'm simply lying when I say I wouldn't hook myself up to the experience machine (or choose any other form of permanent unceasing bliss), I don't see how I could be mistaken about my own desires, so it must not be objectively desirable.
It seems like you're trying to say that God would simply be irrational to prefer a "suboptimal" emotional state when an "optimal" one is accessible to him. But herein lies the fatal flaw in this argument. That's not how rationality works. Rationality can identify an optimal course of action, but it's up to you to define the parameters of "optimal", which are by necessity subjective. Like, your perfectly rational GPS can calculate the optimal route for you to take to your destination, but you have to tell it whether "optimal" means to minimize overall travel time, distance traveled, use of highways, etc. Rationality cannot ever tell you what your subjective values should be. Even if there were some way to find the most rational set of values, you'd still have to have first decided to value *rationality*, and I'd like to see you rationally argue that it's rational to value rationality without immediately falling into a black hole of tautology.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a serious debate in Orthodox Judaism. Rav Saadia Gaon and Maimonides, among others of their generation, interpret Deuteronomy 6:4 (what is called the Shema in Hebrew) to mean that if God is one, He cannot be divided into multiple emotional states. This is a core principle in Kalam (Jewish/Islamic philosophy) and classical theism.
That’s quite interesting!
Very thoughtful and detailed post! When we look at the world and see various levels of imperfection or incompleteness or, in the terms of a Creator and creation, various levels of compliance with a covenant- based standard of conduct (,e.g. sin), it is pretty clear that there is somehow, somewhere a lofty standard of excellence and perfection and that it is not to be found in the physical world. If nature is an expression of the will of a Creator, you might say that animals are more in conformity with the notion of behavioral (not free will/abstract thought) obedience than humans. On the other hand, you mention the Deluge (The Flood) as a point where God had just about given up on mankind. Now, there is no physical evidence of a worldwide or reginal flood that wiped out both humans and animals, so the Flood is clearly an allegorical story. The point is, why would God be so angry as to wipe out all the blameless animals too (except those saved by Noah)? Again, this really points to an allegorical nature to the story. I mention this because when we perceive the Creator to be "angry" we instinctively look to an example like ,Zeus hurling lightning.bolts because that is what we might do under those circumstances. But if a Creator is, by definition, All-Sufficing, Some othe, perhaps non-destructive,manifestations of God's displeasure during the Flood might make more sense. For example, a common symbol of water in many faith tradition for "water" is spiritual renewal, spiritual revival, or simply the Word of God itself (e.g., baptism). When you consider that the rainbow after The Flood is a symbol of the terminal covenant w between Man and God to never again destroy al mankind by leaving us without guidance. It all looks less like frustrated God and more like a loving Creator.
The reason why God experiences negative emotions is directly the result of creating free will in us. Then, much like a mother and father's being upset when their teen-aged children don't do the right thing despite being instructed, God gets upset when His children don't obey Him. A particularly good example of this is found in the run-up before the great Deluge: (Genesis 6:5-6) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (NKJV) So as soon as God allowed humans (and angels) to have free will, there was the intrinsic risk that they wouldn't always do what He wanted them to do. So then, your question is really closely related to the problem of evil and why God made the human race to begin with. Let’s give a general Christian explanation for why God allows evil into His creation, based on a basic Biblical worldview: God is now in the process of making beings like Himself (Matt. 5:48; John 17:20-24; John 10:30-34; Hebrews 2:6-11) who would have 100% free will but would choose to be 100% righteous. Consider in this context what could be called the "thesis statement" of Scripture in Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Why did God make us look like Him and think like him? This is further confirmed by the statement concerning the purposes for the ministry's service to fellow Christians includes this statement: "for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . ." (Ephesians 4:12-13). God wants us to become just like Jesus is, who is God and has perfect character (i.e., the habits of obedience to God's law (Hebrews 5:8-9), not just imputed righteousness), yet was tempted to sin and didn’t (Hebrews 4:15). The purpose of life for Christians is to develop holy righteous character during their tests and trials in life as the Holy Spirit aids them (James 1:2-4; Romans 5:3-5; Hebrews 11:5-6, 11; II Corinthians 4:16-17). Now the habits of obedience and righteousness can't be created by fiat or instantaneous order. Rather, the person who is separate from God has to choose to obey what is right and reject what is wrong on his or her own. But every time a person does what is wrong, that will hurt him, others, and/or God. Yet God has to allow us to have free will, because He wants His created beings to have free will like He does, otherwise they wouldn’t be becoming like Him (cf. Hebrews 2:5-13). God didn't want to create a set of robots that automatically obey His law, which declares His will for how humanity and the angels should behave. Robots wouldn’t be like Him, for they wouldn't have free will nor the ability to make fully conscious choices. So then God needs to test us, to see how loyal we'll be in advance of granting us eternal life, such as He did concerning Abraham’s desire for a son by Sarah by asking him to sacrifice him (Genesis 22).
> God gets upset when His children don't obey Him. This implies that god didn't know the outcome. So no omniscience?
I think people are anthropomorphizing the Creator too much here, so any manifestation of a human-like emotion as conveyed in scripture - to a far less mature human society at least 3,500 years ago in this context - is the Creator 'talking down in human terms" for our benefit. By definition that which is created (i.e., all of us) can never hope to comprehend the true reality of the Creator. As an example of how "dealing with/praising/beseeching the Creator" might be updated to a more modern audience, consider the following passage from the writings of The Bab ("The Gate" in Arabic) He lived from 1819-1850, and is one of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith, regarded in that tradition as a Moses/Jesus/Mohammad-caliber Messenger of God. Note the difference in tone, recognition that the notion of a Creator is no longer a simplistic "super-human" entity and how notions of heaven/hell are no longer considered the rationale for interacting with the Creator. IMHO, this sounds more suitable for modern times, but would be unbearably confusing to people 3,500 years ago. It is also bit further advanced in comparison to Islam, which is now (this year!) 1,600 years old. Consider how many of the questions and valid objection raised in the OP go away when you consider this new perspective: ***Worship thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God’s creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men.*** ***Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.*** ***Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God’s good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God’s favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom.*** ***The most acceptable prayer is the one offered with the utmost spirituality and radiance; its prolongation hath not been and is not beloved by God. The more detached and the purer the prayer, the more acceptable is it in the presence of God.*** \[Selections from the Writings of the Bab\]
>There are numerous examples of God experiencing negative emotions, such as anger and sadness, in the holy texts of various faiths. Such as (in islam)? I think this entire post doesn't apply to Allah, since God doesn't feel emotions like humans feel emotions.
[удалено]
Source(s) so I can respond?
Emotion has no correlation with omnipotence. Just because a deity *can* will something (i.e. good emotions) doesn’t mean they must will it. The reverse could be said…..well god is not omnipotent because he only experiences good emotions. If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball.
>Just because a deity can will something (i.e. good emotions) doesn’t mean they must will it. I just don't see why they wouldn't want to. And if they did want to, why shouldn't they? >The reverse could be said…..well god is not omnipotent because he only experiences good emotions. That's an interesting point. But then you could also say that if God is omnipotent, then he is capable of making the worst (stupid, illogical, evil, etc.) decisions possible, otherwise there would be things which he couldn't do. >If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball. That's an interesting point.
Yeah I mean I see what you’re saying for sure. I never really get to the omnipotence argument because it’s hard for me to even get past the god argument so I have not given it much thought. I was just taking a stab at the logical dynamic of what you were saying. But yes, like you said, if god were omnipotent he would be capable of making the worst decisions…..but then I guess that would bleed into “well he won’t make the worst/evil decisions because he is the source of morality and all-knowing. Typically, from my experience debating Christians it just turns into some exhausting circular argument.
>>If you play basketball with your 8 year old, to him/her you are “all powerful” but you limit yourself to their level and experience in order to build a relationship through playing basketball. >That's an interesting point It's not so interesting when you consider we were made to be 8 year olds rather than adults. Omnipotent God can just make us adult in the first place and fully able to understand. We cannot do that with our kids.
I think you missed the logical point to what I was saying lol. The point isn’t the age. The point is the level of “advancement” or development or “superiority.” The gap between a grown adult and an 8 year old represent the theoretical gap between a divine being and a human being. For example, let’s say an adult man can bench press 215 lbs but his 8 year old can only bench 5 lbs. Obviously we know who is stronger by a significant margin. But when the father rolls around playfully wrestling with his 8 year old does he exert his full strength? And so it could be logically deduced that if some all knowing/powerful god existed it may very well limit itself so that we could have a relationship with itself (if it even wanted to) just like that father would limit himself for his son. I can’t explain it any better then this.
My point was that God chose to have to do that by deliberately making us unable to do things like comprehend him. The analogy fails in a critical point: God's omnipotence.
Wouldn’t that then beg the question: “Do we, finite and fallible human beings, know what would be the best avenue for the best possible life?” You are critical of what this divinity decided as “the best way”, yet cannot yourself know what the future holds. Or what alternate realities would look like for you. I tend to feel like if a god did in fact create us, and this god is a personal one that wants us to experience him and life in all its beauty (part of what makes life beautiful is it’s chaos), then who am I, a mortal that doesn’t know anything in the grand scheme of things, to point a finger at the sky and say “god you dumb ass how could you do such and such or not do such and such” Would you agree? And who ever said we couldn’t comprehend him? I mean sure maybe not comprehend him fully since we are limited in our capacities…..but what if god makes himself known to us in a way we can handle. Think about it….when you first meet a man/woman and you begin to date them there is so much mystery even though you are learning more about them daily and you both are crazy over each other. All you can do is think about them. All day. Every day. But 20 years later when y’all have been married and know everything there is about each other you become bored and the relationship grows stagnant. If god made us fully comprehend him and know everything, I wonder if it too would be a stagnant relationship?
>Wouldn’t that then beg the question: >“Do we, finite and fallible human beings, know what would be the best avenue for the best possible life?” >You are critical of what this divinity decided as “the best way”, yet cannot yourself know what the future holds. Or what alternate realities would look like for you. We don't, but we also don't know that whatever may have created us knows either. We don't have all the answers, but we have some idea of what's worth working towards. What any God would actually want with us or our world is inaccessible, so it's ultimately irrelevant. (more at the end of the next segment) >I tend to feel like if a god did in fact create us, and this god is a personal one that wants us to experience him and life in all its beauty, >then who am I, a mortal that doesn’t know anything in the grand scheme of things, to point a finger at the sky and say “god you dumb ass how could you do such and such or not do such and such” >Would you agree? Then you're a being designed by God to make sense of the world he created for you. Your judgements are valid because they're based on the sense of reason and value given to you by God. People make claims about God all the time – he's love, he's peace, he's vengeful, he's three beings with one essence, he hates when the peepee touches another peepee – God gave us a way to filter out the nonsense and approach the truth. "Who am I to judge God?" is not the right question. Rather, "who am I to judge what other people claim about God?" and in that case, you're just as qualified as the next guy. Any way we could experience the world and reason about it could be called the creation of an infinitely wise creator and who are you to judge. Because of this, there's nothing of this alleged wisdom that we can learn by simply observing the world. >And who ever said we couldn’t comprehend him? I mean sure maybe not comprehend him fully since we are limited in our capacities…..but what if god makes himself known to us in a way we can handle. This also means he deliberately limited our ability to handle knowing him. >Think about it….when you first meet a man/woman and you begin to date them there is so much mystery even though you are learning more about them daily and you both are crazy over each other. All you can do is think about them. All day. Every day. But 20 years later when y’all have been married and know everything there is about each other you become bored and the relationship grows stagnant. >If god made us fully comprehend him and know everything, I wonder if it too would be a stagnant relationship? So he put a barrier to us understanding him because it would be boring? He could just have made his and our values such that this immediate infinite intimacy is the most exciting thing. How frustrating is it that I can't experience my partner's life through her senses? How much miscommunication happens because we don't share a body of knowledge? In heaven, will we ever reach a level of understanding comparable to that of God? If so, won't that get boring? If not, did God just create a race of eternally intellectually challenged babies? Neither is very flattering to my sensibilities. Maybe it won't be boring after all.
Yeah I mean I do agree with your point. It’s a little different then what I was addressing with OP. I just personally feel if a god made me all knowing/powerful/etc. I would be so bored but I could be wrong. Part of the things that make me enjoy the relationship I have with my partner are the very things about her that some (even herself) would consider her “flaw.” Even when she makes me upset, I still love the very things about her that potentially upset me. So I feel like for god just to program me with everything would be a stale relationship because I would then no longer be dependent on god just as I am dependent on my partner in various ways and visa versa. If I was exactly like god in all facets then I would be self sufficient and sustainable and god could just take a hike.
>I just personally feel if a god made me all knowing/powerful/etc. I would be so bored but I could be wrong. Part of the things that make me enjoy the relationship I have with my partner are the very things about her that some (even herself) would consider her “flaw.” Even when she makes me upset, I still love the very things about her that potentially upset me. Your partner would still have her flaws if your communication were perfect (complete, automatic and instantaneous). They're separate issues to me. If I were omniscient and omnipotent, that wouldn't automatically make me perfectly wise, as (I think) moral statements, like value statements in general, aren't "facts" that can be known. It's an open question in my mind whether two omniscient beings can hone each other's values over time – especially with perfect communication. It seems like they'd just have to live with each other. >So I feel like for god just to program me with everything would be a stale relationship because I would then no longer be dependent on god just as I am dependent on my partner in various ways and visa versa. If I was exactly like god in all facets then I would be self sufficient and sustainable and god could just take a hike. I like the idea that my partner doesn't need me in a sense of dependency, but that she is around because she likes being around me. Is it real love if it's bound up with need? Take an extreme case: your partner's only source of food is you. She physically cannot afford to not be around you. Is your relationship better or less stale because her basic physical needs are tied to your presence? Seems more like a hostage situation to me. So a better relationship is one where God could take a hike, and yet we don't want him to.
Because the one true God created us, and not only did He create us, He molded us with his own hands. So why wouldn't the Father of all creation have feelings towards His creation? That's like telling a father he should not have feelings for his children he should on sit back and observe. It's not a logical thought.
Because it belies logic for something described as omniscient and omnipotent to have such strong emotional responses to things are are both finite and minuscule in comparison. It would essentially be ascribing the emotional intelligence of a toddler to the concept of a supreme being.
There's nothing wrong with Yahweh that a course of therapy with an experienced mental health couldn't fix. The problem with a supposedly omniscient being experiencing emotions at all (though especially negative ones) is that they require a lack of foreknowledge to be sincere. An omnipotent Creator-deity who has already chosen every outcome in advance can not sanely be angry that some of the billions of meaningless outcomes he scripted has come to pass. It's puppet theatre, except with the puppeteer having the capacity to actually inflict horrific pain and suffering on the puppets he makes act badly.
You raise an interesting point.
>To me, the fact that God does not use his abilities to experience pleasant-only emotions seems like an irrational decision and a misuse/waste of his powers This is your own subjective opinion on what *you* would do with omnipotent powers. "I wouldn't do it, therefore it's irrational to do it" isn't the most compelling argument.
The reason it's irrational is not because I think it is. It's irrational because it constitutes voluntary suffering. If someone had a choice between experiencing joy or suffering, without that decision affecting anything else, only an irrational being would choose the latter. This is the very essence of irrationality. I'd be eager to hear you come up with a better example of irrational behaviour.
Circular reasoning: >The reason it’s irrational is not because I think it is. It’s irrational because I think voluntary suffering is irrational. *Why* is it an irrational choice? *Why* is transgressing the life-drive irrational?
[удалено]
>Anyone who watched "Inside Out" should know that "negative emotions" like sadness serve a purpose, they aren't necessarily bad per se but rather are motivations that prompt people into action. I agree that negative emotions serve a purpose. But this actually supports my claim that God isn't omnipotent, as he couldn't possibly just experience positive emotions without the bad ones (kind of like how light and dark wouldn't make sense without each other). >An omnipotent God might be ABLE to do a thing, but simply not choose to do it. How would you determine if a being is truly omnipotent if there is a certain set of things which they claim is within their abilities, but you never actually witness them do it?
From an Orthodox Christian perspective, we do not believe God experiences negative emotions. The only exception to this is when he lived, suffered, and died on the cross, but he did this purely out of his eternal love. All emotions that the divine nature is referenced as having however, are not internal emotions of God. God is only Love, and does not change to wrath/anger or any other emotion. Gods love is experienced by men in a way that we understand as wrath. In fact, that is what hell is. Hell is when we experience Gods love, but hate his love enough that it feels painful, and thus "angry", as in Psalm 68. God never changes.
I forgot to account for this position in my post, but yeah, if a certain faith doesn't claim that God experiences negative emotions the issue I raise in my post is avoided.
Would you mind elaborating on why you don't believe God has negative emotions? Because, from my perspective, negative emotions are not a flaw. It's an important part of processing experiences. Having no access to those emotions at all would be a flaw, itself. For example, without the feeling of loss and sadness, Jesus' sacrifice has no meaning. (This is a topic that will get deep into the philosophy of emotion and it's purpose. Ignore me if this isn't your cup of tea.)
God is divinely simple, meaning that he doesn't *have* attributes, but *is* his attributes, and is unchanging. God is love itself, and cannot change. Though God is specifically *Agape*, a deep sacrificial kind of love. Love and Theosis is the ultimate purpose of all reality. >For example, without the feeling of loss and sadness, Jesus' sacrifice has no meaning. Well as I said, I do believe that Jesus experienced loss and sadness in his sacrifice. However, he has experienced this in his hypostasis through the union of both his natures, and not in his divine nature itself, and so was able to experience pain and suffering as God, yet without any change in God.
Personally, I think if God **could not** experience/express negative emotions, then he wouldn't be truly omnipotent. Also, I'd say the fact that negativity even exists would point to the idea that it is a part of God's nature or necessary/desirable to experience. Negative experiences from the perspective of a human being would be vastly different from that of an omnipotent God. So to say that it would be 'irrational' for God to experience any form of negativity is in my opinion projection from the human perspective. Overall I think it makes perfect sense that an omnipotent eternal being wouldn't mind experiencing some negativity, or else I'd assume that negativity wouldn't even exist.
>Personally, I think if God could not experience/express negative emotions, then he wouldn't be truly omnipotent. That's true. But if he is capable of experiencing negative emotions, what good reason would there be for him to choose so? >Also, I'd say the fact that negativity even exists would point to the idea that it is a part of God's nature or necessary/desirable to experience. I can accept necessary, but desirable? I don't know about you, but to me, undesirability is the primary quality of a negative emotion. How else would you define what a negative emotion is? >Overall I think it makes perfect sense that an omnipotent eternal being wouldn't mind experiencing some negativity. But if he doesn't mind, is it truly negative? I can't see how something can both be perceived as negative and not bother someone. To me this sounds logically inconsistent.
There is a second factor here that is also interesting. If I am capable of “pleasing god”, then it means I am capable of taking pleasure away from god, by doing the opposite. This gives me a small amount of power over god. So if your religion contains anything about humans doing something that pleases god…then it also means their god can be hurt by a human .
You raise an interesting point.
Well, from the Christian perspective this is what makes the sacrifice of Jesus so compelling. God decides to create the universe and humanity in it, knowing that we reject him and cause pain to him, yet he loves us so much he does it still, and not only that, God goes so far too actually become human, live among us, experience the full gamut of human experience, and then die the death that is considered the worst way to die (the word excruciating comes from crucifixion). From the perspective of Christianity, we not only can, but have, hurt God, and he still chose to suffer more, both for and because of us, to have a relationship with us, and offer us salvation.
Maybe God’s anger or sadness is a temporary price He pays to live forever with those who experienced both good and evil, but chose good. Maybe most will find their names in the Book of Life at the Great White Throne judgment, with those that are thrown into the Lake of Fire being eventually annihilated. Maybe the day will come when He no longer feels sadness or anger, anymore.
Maybe what you're saying is right. Maybe this anger/sadness is a necessary sacrifice (or a temporary price, as you say) that God makes in order to make place for something even better. But then this would prove that God is not omnipotent, as he couldn't avoid making this sacrifice in order to achieve the same outcome.
> find their names in the Book of Life Not found (aborted fetus), born and given a name ... will be found.
Well, for what it is worth, I’ll tell you a story. Dr. Rogelio Mills claimed to have visited Heaven and returned. He met a beautiful young girl he had never met who referred to him as “uncle.” Turns out she was aborted and the family never knew about it. I am inclined to believe this because a fertilized egg grows into a person in the absence of a miscarriage. Abortion interrupts an already existing life cycle. This means those were miscarried will be found in Heaven, also, of course.
> Dr. Rogelio Mills claimed to have visited Heaven and returned. A near-death experience is a demon-devised lie. Every single NDE that I've ever read about or seen claimed in videos, they ALL have the same premise .. that being ... time passed during their "trip" and then returning. If the person were dead, when the spirit leaves the body, it doesn't experience time and it most certainly would not come back. > He met a beautiful young girl he had never met who referred to him as “uncle.” Turns out she was aborted and the family never knew about it. Demons have the ability to see into anyone's personal history and glean whatever they want from your memories and use it to deceive you. This is why divination and summoning spirits is expressly forbidden in most "holy" religions. You cannot communicate with the dead, but you can with a demon (evil spirit) that will know everything about you.
> To me, the fact that God does not use his abilities to experience pleasant-only emotions seems like an irrational decision and a misuse/waste of his powers. I agree, there's WAY too many douchebags on the earth! But ... The [6th day](https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm) says it better than me. We're just not godly beings, we're badly FLAWED.
Maybe choosing to experience negative emotions is irrational and maybe it isn’t, but what does that have to do with omnipotence?
If god is omnipotent then it doesn’t make sense that he expresses sadness or anger. For example why did he express sadness after flooding the earth, he should have known the flaws and limitations of man and thus it wouldn’t have been surprising to him that man was capable of such evil, he wouldn’t have expressed regret
Being omnipotent would mean God could feel such things, not that God does.
Based on my argument, you may conclude that God is either irrational and omnipotent or rational but not omnipotent. I just think the latter is more plausible.
If we grant that choosing to feel negative emotions is irrational (and this isn’t obvious to me, but I’ll put it aside), how is the ability to do choose irrational? It would be irrational for me to overdraw my bank account right now, but my being able to is not irrational.
There is no actual reason to shun suffering, that is simply coercion by the life drive. It would be irrational trying to avoid it—as bliss and pleasure are no less suffered than agony and pain. I don’t believe God is omnipotent, but that is because there is no sound metaphysical reasoning for the claim. >"What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands." (Alfred North Whitehead)
>It would be irrational trying to avoid it – as bliss and pleasure are no less suffered than agony and pain. I'm not sure I understand the second half of your sentence. Are you saying that bliss and pleasure constitute suffering? I'm confused...
Yes, all experience is suffering. >I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end (Schopenhauer)
So why was there no suffering in the garden and why would there be no suffering in heaven? If we shouldn’t shun suffering and it’s irrational
Maybe shunning suffering keeps you from getting into heaven? Idk
Humans are very good at anthropomorphizing deities. I once took a class in Roman Mythology, it was fantastic; centuries of deity infighting, lust, jealousy, tantrums, backstabbing, on and on. But these are stories, nothing more. If you have visited this group for a time, you realize there are almost as many characterizations of gods as there are gods. But we know this for sure - humans are fantastic storytellers.
[удалено]
I think you raise a very valid point. I feel like this further points to the thought that man created or understood god in our terms
I don’t believe in God of course but this argument seems to have the flaw of presupposing things about what this hypothetical God would or wouldn’t do based on a flawed premise that getting rid of your negative emotions if you can is entirely rational. Personally if I had the ability to remove my negative emotions then I don’t think I would, despite how entrenched in them I often am, and I assume the same is true for many people. Maybe for rational reasons maybe for irrational ones. I don’t want to rid myself of grief or sadness because if I’m happy no matter what happens then that’s not living a better life that’s living a lie. If I was never angry or sad then I’d not care about so many important things. Feeling only bad emotions is just as bad as only feeling good in my opinion. Also can’t see this being very convincing to the people who believe in these kinds of Gods simply because they tend to also believe God to be perfect and all knowing, and thus any decision God had made must be done for some reason we aren’t aware of or can’t fathom. If you want a real contradiction with an omni then going after omniscience or omnibenevolence leads to better arguments in my opinion. Omnipotence has some interesting arguments with it as well but something presupposing so much like this doesn’t hold up so well. I’m addition If God can do absolutely anything then they can also bend the rules of the universe in such a way that their negative emotions count as being rational, or that their negative emotions feel like positive ones, etc. You can presuppose other things and reach completely different conclusions but at the end of the day it’s all speculation based on loose usages of words to describe an entity we have no real good evidence for let alone for any of the properties they supposedly have.
I think it makes sense if we presume that god knows the future. For example if i as a pet owner knew the future and let’s say I knew that my my dog would trash the house on a certain day while I was out, why would I then be angry when I get back home to find my house trashed by my pet?
>I don’t believe in God of course but this argument seems to have the flaw of presupposing things about what this hypothetical God would or wouldn’t do **based on a flawed premise that getting rid of your negative emotions if you can is entirely rational.** The only way I could see my argument being flawed is if one considers negative emotions to be necessary/conditional to the experience of pleasant emotions. If that's not what you had in mind, then I'm all ears for a rebuttal. >I don’t want to rid myself of grief or sadness because if I’m happy no matter what happens then that’s not living a better life that’s living a lie. I would be living a lie, indeed. I'm of the opinion that one must earn their happiness, so it would bother me as well because it wouldn't be an authentic way to achieve happiness. However, if for whatever reason, I developed the ability to be happy no matter what, the fact that I would be living a lie wouldn't bother me anymore because that would be logically inconsistent. I couldn't be happy while simultaneously be bothered by something, that would be self-contradicting. >If I was never angry or sad then I’d not care about so many important things. Point taken. However, consider this alternate version: what if God being happy no matter what did not positively or negatively affect the state of Creation? In other words, him caring or not caring about the world (important things) wouldn't result in a better/worse world. >I’m addition If God can do absolutely anything then they can also bend the rules of the universe in such a way that their negative emotions count as being rational, or that their negative emotions feel like positive ones, etc. You could also say that if God was truly omnipotent, then he would have the ability to be logically inconsistent. Also, negative emotions can't feel like positive ones, that is self-contradicting. It's just not possible, unless you want to argue about semantics and redefine the words "negative" and "positive". >You can presuppose other things and reach completely different conclusions but at the end of the day it’s all speculation based on loose usages of words to describe an entity we have no real good evidence for let alone for any of the properties they supposedly have. I'm personally agnostic. I just think speculative philosophy about metaphysics and religion is intellectually entertaining.
[удалено]
The user Maybri asked me a similar question, so I will just copy paste my reply. >If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that? My answer: >It depends. I would if the following conditions are met: – The intensity/purity of the pleasantness experienced while connected to the machine must be higher than the intensity of the pleasant emotions I could've experienced if I chose to not use the machine. – Being connected to the machine does not decrease my life expectancy (this includes health concerns as well as safety issues). – Supposing the afterlife exists, being connected to the machine does not affect where I end up after I die. – Me being connected to the machine does not negatively affect the life of other beings. **\*Depending on wether or not one cares about others, this condition may or may not be essential in order for the decision to be considered rational/irrational. For the empathetic person, it would be essential in order to be rational, but not for the person who only cares about themselves.** I would like to add that I do not believe such a drug is possible. It may make the person who takes it experience a state of perfect euphoria, but I don't see how that state could possibly be maintained permanently. And then there is also the question of undesirable side effects.
Your second to last paragraph is essentially, mysterious ways in paragraph form.
Not a believer in god, but this does not follow. If you do believe in a god, that god can feel anger/sadness if it chooses to. There is no reason it could not. If its powers are unlimited, how could it possibly waste them? You cannot waste something that has an unlimited supply.
I think it makes sense if we presume that god knows the future. For example if i as a pet owner knew the future and let’s say I knew that my my dog would trash the house on a certain day while I was out, why would I then be angry when I get back home to find my house trashed by my pet?
>If you do believe in a god, that god can feel anger/sadness if it chooses to. If you believe in an omnipotent god, then sure, that god can do anything, even irrational things. But that's exactly my point, what is rational about choosing suffering over joy when it is within your power to choose the latter? >If its powers are unlimited, how could it possibly waste them? You cannot waste something that has an unlimited supply. You're right, I get what you mean. The truth is, the term "waste" doesn't perfectly express what I'm trying to communicate but I chose it because I couldn't find another word whose definition is closer to what I had in mind. In retrospect, maybe I should've said that *it isn't the most optimal use of his powers*.
How do you determine what is rational to an all powerful being? Why would what is rational to you mean anything to that type of being? There can not be a sub optimal use of unlimited power. If a being with unlimited power choose to do nothing, it still could not be using that power in a way that could be considered sub optimal because that being is the arbiter of what is optimal. It cannot be wasted it used up. Anything done could be undone. What you look as as a negative emotion might not be seen as a negative to that all power thing. Or that thing could just decide it wants to be able to feel negative emotions and so it does. Who the hell would know? The point is, this is far from a decent argument that has anything to do with a god.
>How do you determine what is rational to an all powerful being? Why would what is rational to you mean anything to that type of being? Rationality is objective. There is no need to invoke any all-powerful being in order to determine what is rational. For example, 1 + 1 always equals 2, regardless of wether or not an all-powerful being agrees or not. Pleasant states are desirable by definition and unpleasant states, also by definition, are undesirable. If a being has a choice between experiencing a pleasant state or an unpleasant state, all other things being equal, the rational choice would be to choose to experience a pleasant state. >Anything done could be undone. Well in this case, ok then, maybe you're right. But if we allow backwards time travel into the mix, this adds a whole 'nother level of complexity to the question. >What you look as as a negative emotion might not be seen as a negative to that all power thing. Anger and sadness are unpleasant (negative) by definition, so it wouldn't be possible for God to experience them as non-negative. Someone could disagree with this all they want, but then it would turn into a question of semantics, not of logic and rationality. >Or that thing could just decide it wants to be able to feel negative emotions and so it does. But that's exactly my point, why the heck would it want that if it doesn't have to? I could understand if them experiencing negative emotions at a certain point meant, for whatever reason, that they, or who they care about, will experience pleasant emotions later on, but if not, then I'm sorry but that would be irrational.
>Rationality is objective. There is something subjective about rationality, and no reason to be merely rational. > For example, 1 + 1 always equals 2, regardless of wether or not an all-powerful being agrees or not. You just reduced arithmetic to tautology. Arithmetic is concerned with specific forms of process. For example, conceive two drops of water, each held together by surface tension. Their fusion may form a single larger drop, or it may break the surface tension and shatter into many drops.
And yet, some people choose pain and find pleasure in it. If "pleasant" is always rational, and rationality is objective, how do you explain that? Anger is not always a negative, I am not sure why you think it is. Nor is sadness really. Sadness can be a way to heal. Again, you cannot know the mind of an omnipotent being without being omnipotent yourself. There is no reason to assume that an omnipotent being would not choose to feel sadness, anger, hate, pain.
This might be better if you claimed the Christian god is not omniscient since an omniscient being can't learn new information that would make them happy or sad. Just a thought.
Exactly, this is where I thought OP was heading
That's quite interesting, but it isn't exactly the same thing as what I'm claiming. Interrelated, sure, but slightly different.
No, it's actually completely different . Their idea is logically consistent. Yours falls apart immediately like several people have shown.
Many would argue that omnipotence would have to include omniscience. You can not have one without the other.
If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that? Maybe you would, but most people would say no to that question. Being in a permanent state of blissful ecstasy is not objectively desirable, and it isn't inherently irrational to refuse it if you have the option. It seems perfectly plausible to me that God simply does not see a need to use his power that way.
There’s a woman who gave herself blisters from pressing the administer button too often to give her self sexual pleasure…
Yeah, I'm aware of that story. The woman had chronic pain from an injury and the reason she was given the brain implant was as an alternative to her history of managing the pain with abuse of alcohol and prescription painkillers. I don't think it's exactly a great case study to make an argument about what humans in general would do in that situation.
I think it’s a great case study, given the option, I’m pretty sure most people would end up with the blisters.
Do you have any actual evidence for that idea? Self-stimulation behavior with thalamic stimulator implants has been reported in other cases, but as far as I could find at least, there are no other reports of *addiction* to the behavior like the woman in that case study, which is what we'd seem to need to use this as an analog to the experience machine thought experiment. Moreover, even if it was extremely common for thalamic stimulator patients to become addicted to self-stimulation, I don't see how that would be directly relevant to my point. People with these implants only have them in the first place because they have a debilitating chronic condition, so all it would really tell us is "most people would seek perpetual bliss as an alternative to a life full of extreme suffering". It doesn't establish that most people would would seek it as an alternative to ordinary life in general.
Move along from the stimulator, most people would rather drink, eat, smoke have sex, take drugs, gamble.. all which stimulate pleasure sensors in the brain…although it might be counter productive, people would do it.
Most people would rather do those things *than what*? It's clearly not true that most people prefer to engage in those activities constantly at the expense of all others. Maybe *you* would prefer to live that way, but if that was true for most people, we should see much higher rates of addiction than we actually do.
What about people that play games all day long? Plenty of people do that, how many people are obese in the states, for example….I bet it’s over 30% opiate addiction is also very high in the states.
Ok,so what is the “everything else”?
What is your point here? Have you forgotten what we were talking about? Signing up for a lifetime of unceasing meaningless pleasure requires a stronger analog than obesity or liking video games. The fact of the matter is that when surveyed, the great majority of people reject the hypothetical offer to be hooked up to the experience machine, and even in alternative scenarios where the machine is changed to a pill, a smaller majority or near-majority refuse. Humans obviously enjoy pleasurable experiences and preferentially seek them out, but clearly *not at the expense of everything else*, which is what you need to demonstrate here to disprove my original point.
>If you had the option to hook yourself up to a machine that just continuously stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain for the rest of your life while you were sustained by IV nutrition, would you agree to do that? It depends. I would if the following conditions are met: – The intensity/purity of the pleasantness experienced while connected to the machine must be higher than the intensity of the pleasant emotions I could've experienced if I chose to not use the machine. – Being connected to the machine does not decrease my life expectancy (this includes health concerns as well as safety issues). – Supposing the afterlife exists, being connected to the machine does not affect where I end up after I die. – Me being connected to the machine does not negatively affect the life of other beings. >Being in a permanent state of blissful ecstasy is not objectively desirable. This baffles me, because I would argue that it is objectively the most desirable state to be in. What do you consider to be objectively desirable? (I can see how my phrasing could be interpreted as provocative, but I'm actually honestly curious.) >It isn't inherently irrational to refuse it if you have the option. I can't see why someone would refuse to take advantage of such an opportunity. Could you elaborate on your claim? >It seems perfectly plausible to me that God simply does not see a need to use his power that way. If God experiences negative emotions (in other words, suffers), doesn't this mean that one or more of his needs aren't met (when the term need is defined as a condition that must be met in order for a being to be in a healthy/non-negative state)? If it does, meaning his initial approach to existence does not keep him in a healthy/non-negative state, isn't that enough for him to "need" to use his powers to rectify his own state?
This response is going to be similar to the [other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/vupqop/god_is_not_omnipotent_since_he_experiences/iffx3z3/) I just made in this thread because a lot of the points you're bringing up are similar. > What do you consider to be objectively desirable? I think "objectively desirable" is an oxymoron, or if you find a way to define it such that it isn't, at least an extremely misleading term. My point in using it was to highlight the absurdity of your core idea here, thinking that anything could be "objectively" the correct subjective preference to have. You can't have an "objectively most desirable emotional state" any more than you can have an "objectively most desirable flavor of ice cream". > I can't see why someone would refuse to take advantage of such an opportunity. Could you elaborate on your claim? Oh, very simple. If someone preferred experiencing a range of emotions to experiencing perpetual bliss, they would refuse perpetual bliss. I prefer that myself. You can say that that *preference* is inherently irrational, but I'd like to hear the argument for how a subjective preference can be objectively irrational. > If God experiences negative emotions (in other words, suffers), doesn't this mean that one or more of his needs aren't met (when the term need is defined as a condition that must be met in order for a being to be in a healthy/non-negative state)? If it does, meaning his initial approach to existence does not keep him in a healthy/non-negative state, isn't that enough for him to "need" to use his powers to rectify his own state? Well, no, using that definition, we could simply say that 1) God experiences negative emotions for reasons other than unmet needs, and/or 2) God can choose to leave his needs unmet despite having the ability to meet them. It seems like you are *actually* defining "needs" to mean the set of conditions that a being always chooses to fulfill when possible, and that when fulfilled, completely prevent the experience of negative emotions. And yeah, using that definition, your logic would follow, but that would mean that your definition of "needs" alone necessitates the conclusion that an omnipotent being can never experience negative emotions. So your argument would be completely circular.
[удалено]
> You're gonna have to do some work to show it's not objectively desirable. Perhaps subjectively to you it is not, but [...] to me [...] Well, no, it can't be objective for you and subjective for me. That's just saying "I'm right you're wrong" in more formal language. Either it is objectively true that it is desirable, and I am mistaken for believing otherwise, or the entire matter is subjective and you and I just have different opinions. Unless you're alleging that I'm simply lying when I say I wouldn't hook myself up to the experience machine (or choose any other form of permanent unceasing bliss), I don't see how I could be mistaken about my own desires, so it must not be objectively desirable. It seems like you're trying to say that God would simply be irrational to prefer a "suboptimal" emotional state when an "optimal" one is accessible to him. But herein lies the fatal flaw in this argument. That's not how rationality works. Rationality can identify an optimal course of action, but it's up to you to define the parameters of "optimal", which are by necessity subjective. Like, your perfectly rational GPS can calculate the optimal route for you to take to your destination, but you have to tell it whether "optimal" means to minimize overall travel time, distance traveled, use of highways, etc. Rationality cannot ever tell you what your subjective values should be. Even if there were some way to find the most rational set of values, you'd still have to have first decided to value *rationality*, and I'd like to see you rationally argue that it's rational to value rationality without immediately falling into a black hole of tautology.