Forum:What would you say to God?
Just a fun discussion, and to make this interesting, let's say this God is nothing like they say he is in scripture. Completely not the Abrahamic God, among others. What would you say to him if you met him? As for me, I would say... "Can you help with climate change?" Serocco (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Timely question given Steven Fry on RTE. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think some variation on "You had better have a fucking good excuse" is the only apposite comment anyone could make. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Way to be the stereotypical atheist angry at god or whatever. Anyways, I'd wish for more wishes. Gods and genies are pretty similar. Ikanreed (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given the real world, there really would be no other ethical way to approach dialogue with a god-like being. I mean, maybe there is a very good excuse. Maybe this hypothetical god wasn't up to the task and did the best they could in the circumstances. I would hope that a hypothetical god in such circumstances would welcome any help in fixing things, however small a contribution. But the more powerful this hypothetical god is, the bigger a fuck-up they become morally, to have the world the way it is. I'm not going to ignore godly cruelty and moral bankruptcy just to avoid hurting the feelings of the liberally religious. If you wouldn't be angry with god, atheist or no, you've not been paying attention. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- It could just be very powerful and very dumb. Let's conjecture a solution to the problem of evil where god is an honest-to-god moron. Then you have an ethical mandate to educate or trick it. Ikanreed (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I meant 'power' above not just as in power to change the world, but the passel of superpowers that are generally comorbid with omnipotence. So a powerful but dumb god would halfway up that power scale or something. A 'how did this get here I am not good with creation' explanation would explain so much. Given how much of a better job humanity has done (by and large) in the morality stakes than any flavour of divine being, whatever excuse there was would have to account for not learning on the job. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- It could just be very powerful and very dumb. Let's conjecture a solution to the problem of evil where god is an honest-to-god moron. Then you have an ethical mandate to educate or trick it. Ikanreed (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given the real world, there really would be no other ethical way to approach dialogue with a god-like being. I mean, maybe there is a very good excuse. Maybe this hypothetical god wasn't up to the task and did the best they could in the circumstances. I would hope that a hypothetical god in such circumstances would welcome any help in fixing things, however small a contribution. But the more powerful this hypothetical god is, the bigger a fuck-up they become morally, to have the world the way it is. I'm not going to ignore godly cruelty and moral bankruptcy just to avoid hurting the feelings of the liberally religious. If you wouldn't be angry with god, atheist or no, you've not been paying attention. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Way to be the stereotypical atheist angry at god or whatever. Anyways, I'd wish for more wishes. Gods and genies are pretty similar. Ikanreed (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would see no reason to not attempt to recite the Babel Fish speech as close as I could get to it. Trick (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"ayy lmao" --Ymir (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you're talking about a designer god, I'd strongly advise him to stop slacking. I mean, how come your pinnacle of creation still contains single critical function equipments, like our main computer, and most with single power supply, and/or single points of failure? Even by our lowly human design standards, like the FAA certification rules, noone should ever end handicapped or dead from a stroke. Then, I would offer my engineering and certification auditing services, for the low price of immortality and another couple godlike powers. Once working with him, I'd try to help him redesign the world so that global immortality and minimum suffering can become realistic.--dx (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask for superpowers, so I can do the stuff God's too lazy/disinterested to bother with. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be content with the standard three wishes. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the third wish is always to put right the wrongs done by wishes one and two. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- To paraphrase a quote by Julianne Moore about this very question: "Well, I guess I was wrong, because you do exist." KevinR1990 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would ask, "So I have been joking about something-are bacteria more important to you than humans? If the world was designed to serve a specific sort of life form, bacteria seemed more likely than humans. Not that I saw any reason for you to care about life" Arachne1988 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- But... humans are bacteria, no? (In the sense that they're composed of cells and all cells evolved from bacteria when you get down to it.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- True, when I joke about god favoring bacteria it is more to mock the very egocentrism and arrogance that underlies that a god would be anthropocentric. Often the idea of an anthropocentric god seems to hinge on how all the things we regard as special and wonderful about ourselves, and not about how significant we are in the universe or the planet. Why should a deity focus on a species that takes up such a small portion of space-time? Homo sapiens have lived what 100,000 years (?) on a single planet and with how destructive we are I doubt we will double that number-not that I think humans will die off soon. Such an unstable state as life is already questionable and a rather arbitrary selection-if there is a god I would sooner bet on a deistic or pantheistic one than a theistic one.
- The specifics of the joke about bacteria being god’s favorite focus on how the domain bacteria’s adaptations are far more impressive. It works similarly to how a sentient puddle might regard the hole it is in as designed for it. Many (if not most) other life forms are dependent on bacteria, directly or indirectly. Human attempts to kill some of them off have only served to strengthen them. Some can live without oxygen. Others can survive extreme heat. The pressures of the deep seas are home to others. Yet others can survive space with ease. Nuclear radiation is a non-issue to some others. They are some of the oldest life forms and will no doubt continue on after us.
- Admittedly, I study psychology, not biology. I am more focused on the anthropocentrism issue with the joke and do not have a very deep understanding of bacteria. Arachne1988 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. Yes, we're all descended from a prokaryotic common ancestor, but saying "we are all bacteria" is just redefining the term "bacteria" to mean "life". It's "Why are there still monkeys?" thinking. Species, and groupings of species, are human classifications that we create for the purpose of distinguishing between different organisms. --Ymir (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Trolling God
- "Got your nose!"
- "No you haven't."
- "Yes I have. Look, here."
- "That's not My nose!"
- "Yes it is. You just don't want to see your nose in my hand, because you're closed-minded."
- "Look, I still have My nose-"
- "Who are you going to believe? Your lying senses or divine revelation?"
- "What divine revelation? You just said that, that's no divine revelation."
- "It was too divine revelation."
- "Was not."
- "Was too."
- "Look, if anyone know divine revelation, it's Me, right, so-"
- "I can prove it was divine revelation."
- "How?!"
- "I said it was. I said what I said before was divine revelation, so it must me. Who are you to deny divine revelation?"
- "Now look, pal, I'm the Creator around these parts, and I don't take too kindly to-"
- "If you deny that what I said was divine revelation, then you are undermining the very concept of logic itself."
- "... What? How? I don't even-"
- "You're just arrogant. Any fool can see that my words prove that my words are true. How presumptuous of you to assume your own flawed senses and flawed intellect are more reliable than my say-so!"
- "I can't believe how silly you have been."
- "Yeah, well that makes two of us, pal."
- *middle finger*
- Scene. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)