If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?

You are being silly Neo. If I had stopped at verse 15, you would have asked me why I didn't continue with verse 16.

Read the whole chapter... it is very clear that the serpent in this story refers to an animal who was part of the creation. It says as much in verse one and God addresses the animal as an animal in verses 15 and 16. There is nothing to indicate that the serpent here was an immortal supernatural being.

Ebrown_p, I don't think that there is anything you can do to make programs conscious. Consciousness seems to require brain structures that I don't think can be duplicated by electronics, at least not yet. It's the difference between watching a real-time graph of you labor contractions and feeling the pain before vs after getting an anesthetic. For you men, imagine watching an EKG of your heart versus feeling your it thump in your chest.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

One of my beliefs is that we are not truly alive, and that nothing is really alive (or everything is alive).

aperson wrote:

If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?

Answer:

When Adam and Eve were created, they had only one moral choice: whether or not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

Now this explanation will no doubt bring much caterwauling and sophomoric sputtering - - But.

Adam and Eve chose to follow their own course of action and make moral decisions on their own.

Didn't work out too well, as it turns out.

The initial question on this thread is whether it is "moral" for a creator to condemn his own creations. I would like to avoid getting too far afield... but I guess this is relevant.

If I understand the argument... it is OK for me, as creator, to destroy my creations (programs) in any way I see fit. However, it is not OK for God, as creator, to dispose of his creations.

The argument depends on this notion that humans feel pain that programs can never feel.

This argument doesn't make sense.

But... pain is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction that was designed to increase our chance of survival. There is nothing mystical about pain.

You are letting your empathy get in the way. This is problematic because empathy is also just an electrochemical reaction that was designed to increase our chance of survival.

There is no reason that I should have empathy for my creations. I can choose to care.. but I have no moral obligation to care.

I think it is the same with God. He gave us pain because it is important for our survival... and he gave us empathy. God may choose to care about us, but he (as creator) has no obligation to care at all for us (his creations).

Note that I am saying that God doesn't have to care... not that he doesn't care (this is an important difference).

. . . God created the situation and failed to give Adam and Eve the moral resources to make the decision he required of them. God lied to them, the serpent told them the truth, and God punished them and all of their descendents for choosing knowledge over ignorance. That wasn't fair.

It is unethical to punish people for sins they didn't commit.

You used the word "programmed" which is interesting. I happen to be a programmer.

Sometimes I make a program that is very good. It does what it is supposed to, and is elegant as well. There are some designs that I am quite pleased with.

At other times, I have an idea that turns into a design that has no right to exist. This could be because I didn't think of a problem with my solution before I started writing the program. Or I could have just had an off day.

When I write a bad program, I either just abandon it, or I delete it completely. These programs don't have any right to complain (and I have no responsibility to listen to their complaints).

The fact that I am a good programmer doesn't mean that I will think all of my works are worth it.

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the Woman "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden''"

Anyways.

Neologist
(I could quote but so many choices)
I find it sick you believe that if A&E had not taken an apple from a tree we would be living in a magical garden with unicorns and happy animals
that could probably talk:
*pull out bible*
*blows off the dust*
Ahem

Quote:

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the Woman "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden''"

Ergo: Talking animals.

Anyway. That is the behaviour I expect from a 5 year old not ... oh wait. You are older than... nevrmind.

Atheist101 wrote:

Anyways.

Neologist
(I could quote but so many choices)
I find it sick you believe that if A&E had not taken an apple from a tree we would be living in a magical garden with unicorns and happy animals
that could probably talk:
*pull out bible*
*blows off the dust*
Ahem

Quote:

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the Woman "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden''"

Ergo: Talking animals.

Anyway. That is the behaviour I expect from a 5 year old not ... oh wait. You are older than... nevrmind.

Unicorns, eh?

And talking animals rather than animals who appear to talk?



Straw men, both.

Your attempts at intellectualism are a hoot.

neologist wrote:

Atheist101 wrote:

Anyways.

Neologist
(I could quote but so many choices)
I find it sick you believe that if A&E had not taken an apple from a tree we would be living in a magical garden with unicorns and happy animals
that could probably talk:
*pull out bible*
*blows off the dust*
Ahem

Quote:

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the Woman "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden''"

Ergo: Talking animals.

Anyway. That is the behaviour I expect from a 5 year old not ... oh wait. You are older than... nevrmind.

Unicorns, eh?

And talking animals rather than animals who appear to talk?



Straw men, both.

Your attempts at intellectualism are a hoot.

Yes. Of course.
The animals just "appear" to talk. Your attempts at justifying your beliefs are funny too.

Atheist101 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Atheist101 wrote:

Anyways.

Neologist
(I could quote but so many choices)
I find it sick you believe that if A&E had not taken an apple from a tree we would be living in a magical garden with unicorns and happy animals
that could probably talk:
*pull out bible*
*blows off the dust*
Ahem

Quote:

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the Woman "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden''"

Ergo: Talking animals.

Anyway. That is the behaviour I expect from a 5 year old not ... oh wait. You are older than... nevrmind.

Unicorns, eh?

And talking animals rather than animals who appear to talk?



Straw men, both.

Your attempts at intellectualism are a hoot.

Yes. Of course.
The animals just "appear" to talk. Your attempts at justifying your beliefs are funny too.

There are many references in the bible to the identity of the one who spoke with Eve. If you believe it was actually an animal, you haven't comprehended the story.

The bible is not a scientific treatise, nor was it intended to be. It is a book that explains God's purpose to agrarian man and modern man alike. Because it was composed to be understood by even the unlettered and ordinary, it often becomes a trap to those who are educated and 'intelligent'. As such, it provides ready license for those who would prefer to not recognize God's right to set standards for his creation.