Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?

[surreptitious57]

Ned : it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and yet not be totally a hundred per cent certain of the non existence of God. I am an agnostic
atheist myself because I cannot prove that God does not exist in spite of there being absolutely no evidence for him. As a scientist you know
that just because a hypothesis is untestable does not make it untrue only that it cannot be investigated and subject to potential falsification

When I was a theist I did not think too much about God from a logical perspective. For me it just was a given that he existed. When I became
an atheist I became more interested in science too and learnt of the scientific method and how objective observation along with peer review
is the most reliable methodology for understanding how the Universe actually functions. And so applying it to God I can find zero evidence he
exists. Of course this does not mean he does not exist. But it is important to emphasise that where there are two or more probables they are
not automatically equal. Since one could be more so than the other or others. And the reason why belief is so strong is because of the fear of
death. And confirmation bias referenced in arguments from emotion will be employed to account for it. My thinking on all of this draws from
maths and psychology and philosophy. I am overall more aware of these than when I was a theist so see things more clearly as a consequence

But one must never become complacent as that is a luxury one cannot afford. No one has a monopoly on wisdom and they should consider all viewpoints not just those they find favour with. Easier said than done of course but even so. I myself try not to have fixed opinions about any
thing beyond that that can be absolutely determined either by reason and logic or evidence and proof. So I have zero intention of making any
one to think as I do. Since the validity of any proposition or hypothesis is not conditional upon how popular it is. And I am more attracted also
to alternative view points as they could highlight my own ignorance on a particular matter or allow me to view it from a different perspective

Of course one has to have some foundational basis for understanding the Universe but I also realise that not everything which is known may be completely true. As a scientist you will know of the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity in spite of them being
the twin pillars of twentieth century physics. So some times it is a case of one step forward and two steps backward. So any foundational basis must be self correcting to allow for error. Science certainly is but religion much less so. Which is why I trust the former moreso than the latter

[Ned]

I got some very interesting replies again, and fully agree with surreptitious's post.

I am not particularly interested in proof for, or against, god's existence. I just want to know how believers manage to maintain their faith in view of disturbing facts we all agree about.

Here is one example:

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that there was a god who created the universe (unanswered questions notwithstanding).

Why did 'he' create predators?

'He/She/It' had already worked out the technique of photosynthesis for the plants.

'He' could have based his design of all of us on the superior technique of photosynthesis (absorbing sunlight directly, instead of the parasitic way of devouring each other)?

Did 'he' not know what enormous, unimaginable amount of suffering 'he' unleashed on the world, in which the survival of any one of the predatory species (including us) required the fear, pain, suffering and death of countless herbivores?

'He' was omnipotent, wasn't 'he'?

What was 'his' excuse?

Did he like the fear, pain, suffering he created?

Was it divine entertainment?

Just curious, how believers would answer this.

[ReliStuPhD]

All of these assume that such a world would be better. Isn't the burden on you to show this to be the case? After all, the answer to all your questions could simply be "because it would have been a worse creation, not a better one." I think you need to demonstrate that humans gaining energy through photosynthesis is better than through devouring animals. If I remember correctly, photosynthesis would not provide enough energy for us to exist as we do given how large we are and how much energy we use. Why assume that existence is superior? Certainly fear, pain, and suffering are things we'd rather avoid, but are they worth it to exist as free beings? A lot of humans seem to think so. (That is, tell them "I can take all these things away, but you won't be free anymore." What do you think they'd choose? And even if they chose enslavement, wouldn't that just be another form of fear, pain, and suffering?)

EDIT: Ned, I made a few changes through edits. If you respond to my original post, I'll just stick with that. No need to be beholden to my edits.

[Ned]

According to christian dogma, god is omnipotent.

Therefore he could have created a world without fear, pain and suffering.

He did not.

Why?

[ReliStuPhD]

According to christian dogma, god is omnipotent.

Therefore he could have created a world without fear, pain and suffering.

He did not.

Why?

OK, I get your point now. Apologies for my earlier confusion.

Yes, God could have created such a world. The question is whether that would have been the "best of all possible worlds." Or maybe not even that. Would it have been a world where "freedom was maximized." Let's say, for the sake of argument, I was God and I created this world. Every time I create "World A," I'm please to see no pain or suffering, but I notice that all the inhabitants are automotons. "That won't do," I think, so I end up crafting various "World B's" where the inhabitants have freedom, but at the cost of pain and suffering. Eventually, I nail down just the right balance but, dammit, Ned keeps questioning my choice . But seriously, it goes something like this.

The general defense is that a world with no pain and suffering is a world in which there's no free choice. A world with free choice is a world in which there's pain and suffering, but it's still the "best of all possible worlds where freedom is a virtue" (or some such).

With any luck, that made sense. The bottom line is that, at least on a Christian understanding (and mine as a theist), freedom of choice leads to pain and suffering, but is ultimately better than the alternative.

[Ned]

Every time I create "World A," I'm please to see no pain or suffering, but I notice that all the inhabitants are automotons. "
.... A world with free choice is a world in which there's pain and suffering

If I understand you correctly, then:

- no suffering leads to no freedom and
- freedom leads to suffering.

Please explain the mechanism how this works?

[ReliStuPhD]

- no suffering leads to no freedom and
- freedom leads to suffering.

Freedom entails the freedom to harm. How do you prohibit free people from choosing to cause harm? If you prohibit the freedom to cause harm, you've limited freedom in a rather significant sense.

[Ned]

But, if I am an omnipotent god, I can create people who will never wish to cause harm.

Since they do not wish to do so, they are still free to do anything they do wish.

Sorry, but the buck stops right at omnipotence.

[ReliStuPhD]

But, if I am an omnipotent god, I can create people who will never wish to cause harm.

Since they do not wish to do so, they are still free to do anything they do wish.

Sorry, but the buck stops right at omnipotence.

Would beings who never wish to do harm be beings with free choice, though? I think that's a pretty clear no. If I cannot choose to harm, I am not free to choose. If I am free to choose, I can choose to be harm. I cannot be free and be unable to choose to do harm. If I am created such that I never wish that, an entire avenue of choices has been prohibited to me, ergo, I am not completely free. Omnipotence (in the context of God, at least) does not mean being able to do logically-contradictory things. A free creature who cannot choose to do harm is a logical contradiction. Put differently, a creature who is incapable of choosing the wrong, can never freely choose the right.

The buck stops at freedom, or so it goes in Christian understanding. God is capable of creating a world with no choices. God chooses not to so that we freely choose "Him." God creates the best possible free world.

EDIT: If you an omnipotent god and want your outcome, you simply don't create. What is the point of a world of harmless automatons? Why create them in the first place? Just abstain from creating.

[Ned]

god created us with lots of limitations.

For example, we cannot fly like the birds, we can't breath under water, no matter how we would wish to do so. Why is the limitation of not being able to do harm any different from all the other limitations we are subject to? Sorry, but your argument doesn't work. The buck for a cruel world still stops at the feet of an omnipotent god.

I think that the conclusion that god could have created a world without pain, fear and suffering, but still allowed people to have freedom, is inevitable.

There is another thing that has bothered me about the christian god:

According to gospel, he is supposed to be both omnipotent and omniscient.

But how could he be both?

If omnipotent, then he could do anything he wanted, including changing his mind about the future. But that means that he wasn’t omniscient before, because his knowledge of all past and future events were incorrect: unless he knew exactly how he would change his mind, in which case he couldn’t be omnipotent because he would have to change his mind according to his omniscient knowledge, which would provide him with no freedom at all.

You see my problem?

I hope someone will explain to me how to resolve this dilemma (hopefully not by telling me that god’s ways are mysterious!).

[Ned]

EDIT: If you an omnipotent god and want your outcome, you simply don't create. What is the point of a world of harmless automatons? Why create them in the first place? Just abstain from creating.

I have never wanted to do harm in my entire life, still I don't consider myself an automaton. Not wanting to do harm and living an active, purposeful, productive life seem to go very well together in my case and in the case of many, many other human beings. It is not an either-or scenario.

[ReliStuPhD]

I have never wanted to do harm in my entire life, still I don't consider myself an automaton. Not wanting to do harm and living an active, purposeful, productive life seem to go very well together in my case and in the case of many, many other human beings. It is not an either-or scenario.

But wait, you're a being with free will, no? Or are you telling me it's literally impossible for you to choose to do harm? Well, if it's the later, then yes, I'd say you're an automaton (a highly advanced one, tho. Data is envious). Also, I'm much less impressed than I would have been were you a human with free choice who never wishes to harm anyone. We could do with more of the latter. People who are incapable of harming? Not sure how we pull that one off genetically. It would probably be unethical, though, since it would remove at least a portion of free will and all that.

[Ned]

Seems like we are going around in circles.

And it still does not explain why god created carnivores. I am a vegetarian (with millions of others) and we suffer no ill effects. Actually, it is a lot healthier than eating meat. So how would humanity and all the animals be automatons if they ate only vegetables, instead of each other?

If I believed in god, I would REALLY hate him just for this one thing.

My problem with believers is that they don't seem to mind and they don't demand an explanation for the creation of a cruel world!

[Ned]

PS. and I am still hoping for an explanation of how god could be both omnipotent and omniscient, as I posted the dilemma before?

[Melchior]

Out back, workin on his infinite wizzbang.