Does God get annoyed by creationists?

[Laurens]

I know I would be annoyed if I spent ages working on something, and people turned around and said I magicked it from nothing in a couple of days!

Obviously for the purposes of humor and nothing more, I am assuming the existence of God. What do you think God might think of creationists?

 

[Memeticemetic]

I know I would be annoyed if I spent ages working on something, and people turned around and said I magicked it from nothing in a couple of days!

Obviously for the purposes of humor and nothing more, I am assuming the existence of God. What do you think God might think of creationists?

I'd likely hold them in as much contempt as I already do. I'd just be in more of a position to do something about it.

 

[Squawk]

First thought

Oi, Peter, you seen the designs for the ark? Looks like we need it again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

First thought

Oi, Peter, you seen the designs for the ark? Looks like we need it again.

:lol:

 

[Trons]

I gotta go with the above opinions and find no reason to think differently.

I'll go one further, I could see god being like:

"Dang, I give them the ability to reason, I give them the tools they need and they still think this? I should just kill the lot of them and start over..."

Edit: The last part

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Assuming God isn't omniscient, because in that case this wouldn't make any sense... hmm.... He would be disappointed. Annoyed? If God is smart enough he'll be absolutely devastated by their apparent superhuman powers of annihilation via stupidity.

 

[lrkun]

I know I would be annoyed if I spent ages working on something, and people turned around and said I magicked it from nothing in a couple of days!

Obviously for the purposes of humor and nothing more, I am assuming the existence of God. What do you think God might think of creationists?

Yes since god causes calamities and hardship to fall upon people.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god, then clearly it must intend for them to exist... though I can scarcely imagine why.

If we're dealing with a less omniscient or Black & White style god, then I imagine it has reconciled itself to human stupidity long ago... probably why we haven't seen much of it lately.

 

[Trons]

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god, then clearly it must intend for them to exist... though I can scarcely imagine why.

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god who has given freedom of choice, how would this change your opinion? To be more direct. If god knew, that by given free will, that creationists would eventually be something the world has to deal with, does that mean that they are not part of his plan? I will say that I can't imagine why either, but I'm just throwing this out for conversation.

 

[borrofburi]

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god, then clearly it must intend for them to exist... though I can scarcely imagine why.

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god who has given freedom of choice, how would this change your opinion? To be more direct. If god knew, that by given free will, that creationists would eventually be something the world has to deal with, does that mean that they are not part of his plan? I will say that I can't imagine why either, but I'm just throwing this out for conversation.

An omniscient being knows everything that was, is, and will be. An omnipotent being is completely able to change anything he wants (and knows about), past, present, and future. An omnipotent and omniscient being by definition knows exactly what effects his actions and lack of action will have on everything, past, present, and future. Thus anything I do was specifically planned out and chosen by an omniscient omnipotent being if it exists, whether through that being's actions, or that being's inaction.

How can you say free will exists in a universe where everyone's actions were specifically planned and chosen by someone else?

 

[lrkun]

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god, then clearly it must intend for them to exist... though I can scarcely imagine why.

If we're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent god who has given freedom of choice, how would this change your opinion? To be more direct. If god knew, that by given free will, that creationists would eventually be something the world has to deal with, does that mean that they are not part of his plan? I will say that I can't imagine why either, but I'm just throwing this out for conversation.

Whether my opinion will change.

No since that definition still qualifies my earlier reason.

Whether such god has a plan.

It depends since there is no basis to assume that this god has a plan. It might leave it to chance, remember it knows best, and what's best to us might not be best to it. The key here is don't assume to know what the god you defined knows as you're not omniscient.

Whether god gets annoyed by creationist.

Yes since he kills them despite their momentary pleasure in living. Based on the premise of this thread, I think this is the ultimate joke.

 

[Irokesengranate]

An omniscient being knows everything that was, is, and will be. An omnipotent being is completely able to change anything he wants (and knows about), past, present, and future. An omnipotent and omniscient being by definition knows exactly what effects his actions and lack of action will have on everything, past, present, and future. Thus anything I do was specifically planned out and chosen by an omniscient omnipotent being if it exists, whether through that being's actions, or that being's inaction.

How can you say free will exists in a universe where everyone's actions were specifically planned and chosen by someone else?

You assume that this god is not only omniscient and omnipotent, but also "omni-interested". What if it simply doesn,´t care what some of us do? Even if there is some kind of plan for the universe, that doesn,´t mean that we are all part of it.

Regarding the original question: On one hand it might be annoying if your hard work is simply called six days of magic. On the other hand though, creationists are very confident of their god,´s power. Most gods seem to like being seen as powerful, maybe even more powerful than they actually are, so some gods may like that.
I think if I were that god, I would be more annoyed than flattered.

 

[borrofburi]

An omniscient being knows everything that was, is, and will be. An omnipotent being is completely able to change anything he wants (and knows about), past, present, and future. An omnipotent and omniscient being by definition knows exactly what effects his actions and lack of action will have on everything, past, present, and future. Thus anything I do was specifically planned out and chosen by an omniscient omnipotent being if it exists, whether through that being's actions, or that being's inaction.

How can you say free will exists in a universe where everyone's actions were specifically planned and chosen by someone else?

You assume that this god is not only omniscient and omnipotent, but also "omni-interested". What if it simply doesn,´t care what some of us do? Even if there is some kind of plan for the universe, that doesn,´t mean that we are all part of it.

Sorry, an omniscient omnipotent god can not help but plan everything, because it automatically knows how everything is going to turn out. Unless you want to posit an omniscient god who is too stupid to access its knowledge except slowly, so while it knows everything, it can only remember part of it at a time, and it takes a long while to consult this knowledge base. But I know of few theists who would agree to such a crippled definition of "omniscient". Besides, if the god is omnipotent, then all it has to do is wish it could remember it all at once, and if it ever does that then every moment from then on is planned specifically by it (and possibly the past too). You could argue that for large groups of details it took the path of least resistance because it didn't care, but only if you posit a crippled version of omnipotence, otherwise there is no path of least resistance.

 

[Irokesengranate]

Sorry, an omniscient omnipotent god can not help but plan everything, because it automatically knows how everything is going to turn out. Unless you want to posit an omniscient god who is too stupid to access its knowledge except slowly, so while it knows everything, it can only remember part of it at a time, and it takes a long while to consult this knowledge base. But I know of few theists who would agree to such a crippled definition of "omniscient". Besides, if the god is omnipotent, then all it has to do is wish it could remember it all at once, and if it ever does that then every moment from then on is planned specifically by it (and possibly the past too). You could argue that for large groups of details it took the path of least resistance because it didn't care, but only if you posit a crippled version of omnipotence, otherwise there is no path of least resistance.

I don,´t think the ability to 'not care' would make a (hypothetical) deity any less omnipotent. Maybe this god gave humans free will, then consulted his omnipotence, saw the result and thought "meh, I guess that,´s allright". It doesn,´t have to plan everything, in the same way I don,´t have to plan exactly where my computer stores what data, even though I can make fairly acurate predictions about what a certain program is going to do. What if this god has a specific plan for the universe, and only cares about achieving that goal. If you are not a factor in this plan then the deity wouldn,´t care about your decisions. Our entire planet might be irrelevant to the plan, it might be merely a side effect of the natural laws set by the deity to achieve a different goal. Earth might be God,´s equivalent to the forgotten Yoghurt at the back of the fridge that slowly develops sentience.

(while typing the above I realized that omniscience as a property makes 'free will' impossible. On the other hand, free will IS an illusion, so my conlusion is that I,´m not sure what my conclusion is...)

 

[Unwardil]

Most gods seem to like being seen as powerful, maybe even more powerful than they actually are, so some gods may like that.
I think if I were that god, I would be more annoyed than flattered.

You mean of course, that most Gods are described by their followers as liking all the attention. Assuming said God actually exists, it's sort of like a celebrity only communicating to the masses through their agent(s).

No, if it were me, I wouldn't be so much annoyed by the attention as dismayed that people missed the obvious jokes that I left for them. "Yeah yeah, universal creation, big deal, just a trick, but does anyone notice that every sixth of march, a certain cluster of galaxies align to spell the word 'fart' in ancient hebrew? No, of course not, besides they just care about parlor tricks anyway, like making a solar system or appearing as a burning bush. Fucking ingrates.."

Edit: Additionally, not a brilliant example using the computer, because you don't have anything like complete control about what goes on in your computer. Maybe you have about 1% control through the input but a vast amount of what's going on is pre programmed and pre designed. If God has as much control over the universe as the average computer user has over their computers, he's little more than a universal data entry drone.

 

[lrkun]

If god is violent, then he doesn't get annoyed, since it is in his nature to cause conflict. I think this fits everything to date so long as we base it on the premise of the thread starter. This means that god does not get annoyed as he deemed it best that all things must suffer. Wee

If for the sake of seeing anything suffer, no effort is to great, is this god's motto.

 

[Irokesengranate]

You mean of course, that most Gods are described by their followers as liking all the attention. Assuming said God actually exists, it's sort of like a celebrity only communicating to the masses through their agent(s).

No, if it were me, I wouldn't be so much annoyed by the attention as dismayed that people missed the obvious jokes that I left for them. "Yeah yeah, universal creation, big deal, just a trick, but does anyone notice that every sixth of march, a certain cluster of galaxies align to spell the word 'fart' in ancient hebrew? No, of course not, besides they just care about parlor tricks anyway, like making a solar system or appearing as a burning bush. Fucking ingrates.."

Edit: Additionally, not a brilliant example using the computer, because you don't have anything like complete control about what goes on in your computer. Maybe you have about 1% control through the input but a vast amount of what's going on is pre programmed and pre designed. If God has as much control over the universe as the average computer user has over their computers, he's little more than a universal data entry drone.

I know, I was trying to think of an example while looking around in my room. What about: The tower of DVDs next to my keyboard. I have the ability to arrange them in any combination I want to. Yet I don,´t care in what order they are, as long as the pile serves its purpose: storing my DVDs. I am both omnipotent and omniscient in that situation, but I don,´t feel the need to rearrange them in any way. Suppose the DVDs could change their positions on their own, following 'free will'. I wouldn,´t intervene, because it still doesn,´t matter to me.
I,´m not good at thinking of examples...

Your post made me laugh though . Thinking about it, the absolute apathy towards this beautiful universe that most people show would piss me off if I created everything, even without eastereggs.

 

[Squawk]

Think of it another way. Whether you care or not is irrelevant, you already know what order they were in, are in, and will be in at any point in time. You can't make a decision to change that ordering that you didn't already know was going to happen.

 

[borrofburi]

while typing the above I realized that omniscience as a property makes 'free will' impossible.

Basically my point. Though I maintain that free will can sort of exist with omniscience. I do however say that it is impossible for free will of any kind to exist if there is an omnipotent omniscient being.

I know, I was trying to think of an example while looking around in my room. What about: The tower of DVDs next to my keyboard. I have the ability to arrange them in any combination I want to. Yet I don,´t care in what order they are, as long as the pile serves its purpose: storing my DVDs. I am both omnipotent and omniscient in that situation, but I don,´t feel the need to rearrange them in any way. Suppose the DVDs could change their positions on their own, following 'free will'. I wouldn,´t intervene, because it still doesn,´t matter to me.
I,´m not good at thinking of examples...

Except that an omniscient and omnipotent being would know all possible ways of organizing the DVDs, including the best possible organization, and would instantly be able to organize it in that best possible way at a whim. It might choose not choose to organize them at all, because it already knows every bit of data on the DVD, but it still *chooses* not to organize them (unless of course its ability to think is limited (i.e., it can't think fast, or, possibly, it can't think well)).

 

[Irokesengranate]

Basically my point. Though I maintain that free will can sort of exist with omniscience. I do however say that it is impossible for free will of any kind to exist if there is an omnipotent omniscient being.

In the end it boils down to the order in which things are done. If the being acts first, and then uses its omnipotence to 'look at' the outcome, then omnipotence and omniscience might be compatible. But as soon as the being knows the outcome of its own actions its free will is limited. All of this assumes that the being only perfoms one action. So in the end, I guess you,´re right (and Squawk too).

It might choose not choose to organize them at all, because it already knows every bit of data on the DVD, but it still *chooses* not to organize them (unless of course its ability to think is limited (i.e., it can't think fast, or, possibly, it can't think well)).

Valid point.