Why Would God Care?

But you do care enough to flush, don't you?And you do care what went in at the other end to necessitate the flushing, don't you? You do care that its journey through your system is relatively smooth and painless, don't you?It seems unreasonable to focus on one small step in the process and assert, "I don't care."

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure. If I leave it in my apartment, it will bring disease that can hurt me.God, however, is supposed to be omnipotent. Nothing we can conceivably do can hurt him. How do you figure? The point at which this is said is the point where it doesn't affect me.You seem to be implying that we affect God. But you're not saying how, which makes it another iteration of "God cares because God cares."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Omnipotent is not the same as uncaring. Who's to say we don't effect God?I'm saying that we can only "understand" God in our own terms. If we care about things, we assume that God does too because we have no other frame of reference.The only way to make God not care about anything is to make up a fictional reference frame like you're doing. Essentially, you're saying, "God doesn't care because He doesn't care."

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. But it sure drastically reduces the number of sensible reasons for caring. If nothing can hurt you, then away go all the reasons to care about the possibility of being hurt. Okay. How do we affect God? So maybe he cares about things. But the ability to care doesn't explain why he'd care about us. Yes, the only way to discuss a fictional character is to work from a fictional frame of reference.That being said, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this fictional God differs from the fictional God. People keep insisting that it is different, but nobody explains why. More like, "it's safe to assume God doesn't care, because after 153 posts over the course of nearly a month, nobody has yet been able to produce a solid reason why he would."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

When you become omnipotent we'll take your opinion of "sensible reasons" seriously. If you're willing to admit that He might care, the next step is to admit that He might care about the same things that other caring beings care about - namely us. But you haven't been talking about God as if He was a fictional character. If you were, you would have had to lay out that fictional reference frame from the beginning. But instead of telling us that a fictional character doesn't care, you're asking why He would care.You're implying a real (pre-known) character. Use a real reference frame.All the sentient beings that we know about do "care". They care about themselves. They care about other beings like themselves. They care about other beings unlike themselves."Caring" seems to be a natural property of all sentient beings. It seems reasonable to conclude that unknown sentient beings would also care about things. It seems quite unreasonable to assume that one particular being would not care about anything. Or, "it's safe to assume evolution is a lie, because after hundreds of topics and thousands of posts over the course of many years, nobody has been able to convince all the creationists that it isn't."Forgive me if I don't trust your safety standards. Edited by Ringo, : Pluralized "beings".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You do have one solid reason for thinking the deity would care.As soon as one postulates a conscious being as creator of the universe, it is reasonable to assume this being would 'care about'--have some active interest in--the subsequent state of that universe. Why? Because the idea of a caring being is built into the premise. The being cared enough about the universe to want it to exist. Absent that interest, no creation.It is thus not a 'safe assumption' to take an uncaring creator as one's default setting and insist that all burdens of argument rest on others. Anyone making this assumption may reasonably be called upon to suggest plausible reasons why a being that cares enough about universes to create them in the first place would cease caring about them once they exist.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

If you can think of a sensible reason why something that can't be hurt should care about the possibility of something hurting him, I'm all ears. Okay. So God might care about us. So, now that we've established that, what would the next logical question be? Hm, tip of my tongue, I know it's there, gimme a minute...Oh! Right! Why would God care about us?Ta da! Well, first you say I'm dealing with a fictional God. Now you say I'm not.These semantic games are much more fun than addressing a simple question, aren't they? But not without reason.Again... haven't said God isn't capable of caring. Haven't said God doesn't care about anything. I have only asked why he would care about us. Yeah, I didn't say "over 153 posts, nobody's convinced me of it. I said there was no solid reason given yet.So far we've got:God wouldn't care (Jar, post 7), If we assume God cares, then it makes sense that God cares (Anastasia, post 8), God doesn't care (Brian, post 9), God's capable of caring - no reason given why he would (Jazzns, post 10), Same as post 10 (Creavolution, post 11), God cares because we really are the most important thing in the universe - no reason given why that would be the case (Creavolution, post 15), God doesn't care (you, post 19), God cares because we're not important (Anastasia, post 20), God cares because I don't like the idea of him not caring (Phat, post 21), God cares because the alternative is the horrific, selfish act of recycling (Phat, post 25), God cares because humankind has an undefinable destiny (Phat, post 26), God cares because we are selfish by nature? (Phat, post 30), God cares because Jimmy affects other people - no reason given why God would care about those other people (Phat, post 34), God still has a magnificent destiny for us! Honest! (Phat, post 35), God cares because he wants to talk to us - no reason given why he would want to talk to us (Phat, post 40), God cares because we are the most blindingly important thing in the universe - no reason given why this would be the case (ICANT, post 45), God cares because you HAVE to talk to him - no reason given why this would be the case (Phat, post 46), Well you're just making up a new God now, God DOES care! - no reason given why this is the case - God still wants you to talk to him - still no reason why this is the case (Phat, post 51) Well, I know what you're really asking, and it's not "why does God care?" (purpledawn, post 52), God doesn't care (Catholic Scientist, post 57), You know, "Sin" is also the name of a Nine Inch Nails song (Phat, post 60), Wow, CS has a crapload of posts where he goes on about how sure God "cares", but you can't really call it "caring", per se... they start in post 67, and there's no way in fuck I'm listing them all... and purpledawn has a crapload about the important thing in all this is masturbation... those start in post 70...In fact, from this point on, the thread kind of becomes a nightmare of evasion and semantic wrangling. Besides, I'm at work, and can't do this all day. Maybe I'll finish summing up later. But either way, if I've missed some solid reason in all that, or later on in the thread, feel free to point it out to me.The closest I've seen to an actual reason so far is the artist metaphor, and I addressed that earlier today. If an artist fucks up a picture, they don't get all pissy about how the picture fucked up. They correct their own actions.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I agree. But you're extending the sensible interest in the well-being of the whole creation (the universe) to a specific interest in the well-being of a tiny, tiny, tiny part of it. (Us.) It doesn't follow. Nothing we do affects the whole of the creation. When put into prespective next to the whole of the creation, we are so small a piece as to be irrelevant to the working of the whole.Unless someone can explain a relevance, in which case I'm all ears.And of course, this line of reasoning continues to ignore the number of things we create each day, such as a hearty shit, about which we don't care. Is the burden on me to explain why I don't wrap my daily dump in swaddling clothes and sing it lullabies?Edited by Dan Carroll, : Because every post deserves a good poop

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

You're not paying attention. I'm not omnipotent either. Neither of us is capable of knowing what an omnipotent being would think. No, the next logical question would be, "What would God care about and what would He not care about?""Why" would God care about us is only relevant in the sense of, "Why would God care if Jimmy touches himself?" because there is no sensible reason why he would care. "Why" is not relevant in the sense of "Why would God care if Jimmy murders Suzie?" because presumably God cares about Suzie the same as He cares about Jimmy. He doesn't want to see her get hurt. No, I didn't say that. I said (or tried to say) that you are making up fictional properties for a God that - as you said in the OP - we are assuming is real. Ah, yes, the "semantics" accusation - the last refuge of the cornered fundie. Misrepresent what I say and then accuse me of playing semantics. And I have answered: because that's what sentient beings do - they care.You might as well ask, "Why do rocks fall?"Answer: Gravity. It's built into the universe.Question: But WHY do rocks fall? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what you're saying. Now you're not even talking about caring any more. You're talking about blame. Try to get your story straight.Figure out what you're really trying to ask and try again.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay. Then the question of what God wants is irrelevant. We have no way of understanding it, either way. No. That would require an agreement to the idea that God does care about humans, which does not automatically follow from the possibility that God cares about humans.The questioning of that agreement, of course, would lead us back to "why would God care?" You are, of course, presupposing that God cares about either one. Okay. What are those fictional properties? Not about everything. If I don't know why gravity is, then "why" is a perfectly sensible question. Repeating "Gravity" won't help any.And, of course, if I do understand what gravity is, but am asking why you say a rock would fall with no attracting mass handy for it to fall to, asking "why" becomes even more sensible. "Gravity" is not just a catch-all reason for motion in all circumstances, nor is "sentient beings care" a reason why a sentient being would care about something specific. Well gosh, thanks for clearing that up. Could have sworn I was, though.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Had to go all the way back to the station to find my train of thought. For example:

quote:

---

Nothing we can conceivably do can hurt him. Message 152

---

We have agreed since then (I think) that we have no way of knowing what might effect an omnipotent being. While we might not be able to hurt/damage Him, we might very well be able to make Him "feel bad".So His lack of feeling/caring is a fictional property. I never said "everything". Sentient beings care about some things, at least. By inductive reasoning, God probably cares about some things. But you do know why caring is. You do it yourself all the time. You know as much about it as anybody. So asking "why" is not a sensible question. So apply what you do know. You don't care if Jimmy touches himself but you do care if Suzie gets murdered. For a first approximation, you can conclude that others will care about things in a similar way. If/when you get more information about another being's caring history, you can fine-tune your conclusion. Nope, you weren't. An artist caring about his picture being damaged is certainly not the same as blaming it for damaging itself.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The difference is that Art is not a living thing, nor is it usually drawn or created to have a mind of its own.If an Artist made Art (or a living sculpture) that had a mind of its own, that Artist/Creator may well expect the Art itself to correct itself. Does that make any sense? Bottom Line, Dan: There is no way that any human (or piece of art) will ever be able to explain to you why your Creator/Sculptor should care about you. You were given (through evolution or creation) a mind that was designed to correct your imperfections and idiosyncrasies.Perhaps you regret starting a topic that presupposed the Creator/Artist to be real...I dunno. Are you happy if God is not in the picture, so to speak? (If not, would you want Him to care, assuming His existence? )

Not exactly. I said that if we can't tell, then the whole subject of God's desires is moot. We might. Doesn't imply that we do. And given the lower scale on which we exist, it's very hard to stretch imagination to the point where we could. See, this is where you're skipping from "could" to "does". Just because he could care doesn't mean that suggesting that there's no reason he would violates some law of nature. Sure, I think it's at least reasonable assume that he is capable of doing so. What one person cares about says nothing about what another person cares about. Any number of people have died in Iraq, for instance, that many people in America don't care about. But their families in Iraq sure did.So how could we possibly say that what we care about has any bearing on what an unknowable being of a cosmically higher order would care about? We're back to asking whether you weep for the mold in your shower when you spritz it.Does it not strike you as slightly egotistical to think that The Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator Of The Universe would have the same concerns we do, when the people on this planet don't even have a common standard of caring? At this point, the artist metaphor requires equivocation between blame and caring, and... I guess an outside agency "damaging" it?Guess it's a shittier metaphor than I initially thought.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Yeah, the metaphor gets shittier all the time. This thread has certainly made that clear.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Please stay with the tour. I didn't say anything about violating laws of nature. I said that your "we can't effect God" is an add-on, a fiction not included in your description of God in the OP:

quote:

---

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is, in fact, a God. And not just any old God, but an elderly man, with a long white beard, who sounds a bit like James Mason. His thought process is at least superficially comparable to a human's, and he watches over all of His Creation, taking an active (if at times mysterious) hand in its development.

---

You even admitted in the OP that "His thought process is at least superficially comparable to a human's". Doesn't matter. People care about stuff. Doesn't have to be unanimous.If God's thought process "is at least superficially comparable to a human's", then it's reasonable to conclude that He cares about stuff too. The salient question isn't "why" He cares, but what He cares about. We're not saying it does. We're saying that all the evidence we have indicates that He probably does care in some way. Didn't say He did. (Have you noticed how often I have to point out to you what I actually said?)I have said - and more than once, I think - that He probably has concerns. I didn't say "the same concerns". I didn't say "chocolate concerns".His concerns might be similar to ours or they might not. Having concern for shower mould can mean you want to cuddle it and protect it from harm, or it can mean you want to prevent it from harming you. I don't think it does. I think the "blame" aspect was just a squirm on your part.Why can't we go with this? The Artist cares enough to take the time to create a painting. He cares enough to prevent one colour from running into another one. If the paint behaves itself and doesn't wander out of bounds, He doesn't care how fast it dries.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC