Support NeoGAF

[BocoDragon]

Torture and suffering are "interesting", I suppose.

Sorry, but as a fellow game designer, I gotta call you on this one. Some people aren't winning, and it's insulting to even imply as such.

I wouldn't call it "winning", that was forced by the language used in this discussion. I would call it 'novel'.

There are plenty of novel experiences that we should hope to put an end to.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

^ lol

Amazing I probably will use this a lot.

 

[Pyramid head]

Let's say you really find yourself standing in front of God after you die, at the precipice of eternal damnation.

If God, the creator of the universe, master of time, space, infinite dimensions, etc, tells you that his morality was correct and your perception was wrong, would you really tell him "I don't believe you"? I understand what Fry is going for though.

Honestly, Yes? I'm sure I'd be fine too. He'd surely understand, being omnicisent and all that, how I have reached the conclusions that I have and know how utterly reasonable it is. That is of course, assuming he's not a dick.

 

[BocoDragon]

Boring to who? You? Other humans? All you've shown is that in this life we enjoy conflict. What are the purpose of games though? To entertain? Distract? If you were experiencing never ending bliss in a way not possible in your current body do you really think you'd be jonesing for Half Life 3?

I can understand your objection... But dispense with the word "game". I'm less talking about the creation of objects that thrill advanced primates like ourselves, and more talking about the fundamental concepts that arise when you are programming virtual environments.

I posit that I am not talking about the biology of humans... I am talking about the fundamental rules that go into the creation of spaces.

When you create virtual environments ("game" or not), those without limitations are completely unengaging. If you have objects that behave without rules, it's uninteresting. And I would say that fail conditions, hardships, etc are limitations that make the "play" coherent.

If you can fail to hit a ball into a hole, hitting a ball into a hole is a gratifying feat. And that may be a fact that applies to this and any universe: if something is difficult, doing that thing becomes interesting.

In a world without failure, success is uninteresting. I think that's an element that is true beyond biology, evolution, humans. And I think it fully explains why any creator (which I dont believe in) would include the possibility of failure in his created environment.

 

[Nexus Zero]

I totally agree with his response but I feel like it plays into the Christian mindset of "see, they *do* believe, they just hate God"

 

[Stereogatari]

What he says about the Ancient Greeks is so on point, Japan is the same and the Ancient Turkic/Mongol religion, hell even Sufi Islam as well. Decentralized religions don't seem to be as...zealous as centralised monotheistic ones. When you have multiple Gods as metaphors for natural phenomenon and human emotions and such, then it just becomes a matter of appreciating the aesthetics of reality and you get some cool mythology out of it to boot.

 

[Prophet Steve]

^ lol

He reminds me very much of Bilbo Baggins in Return of the King.

 

[Braag]

Holy shit, amazing

 

[Nabbis]

Well, yeah, there's not much else to say about the Abrahamic idea of a singular God. Seems quite obvious really.

 

[convo]

This old man needs to chill a little.

 

[bannedmelon]

I've heard plenty of christians argue against things like the problem of evil and similar things because they just don't get what 'omnipotent' means. If we pretend there could be an omnipotent being, there's literally nothing it couldn't do, even paradoxical things.

Regarding being both omnipotent and good, I've found myself asking: Why did god create suffering? Why did god make some actions sins? Why did he make humans who want to sin? Why did he impose suffering to all as the penalty of two people's sin? Why did he create a being who would influence people to sin? Why didn't god allow 'free will', but also prevent sin? Why must sin be punished? Why can't people lead rich and meaningful lives even without suffering? Why can't people appreciate the good things even without bad things? He's god, he could have solved any of these problems instantly on a whim. That's what omnipotence means.

Of course, omnipotence is a nonsense concept anyway. Rationality is contingent on observing and judging natural cause and effect to come to any conclusion. Since omnipotence includes the ability to manifest a physical paradox or otherwise make the laws of nature inconsistent, it is itself supernatural, and we as natural beings could never use our natural senses to observe any evidence of the supernatural, so there could definitively never be a rational reason to even consider the possibility of something being supernatural, especially something which explicitly nullifies natural law like omnipotence. It throws most interpretations of the christian god out the window.


As for giving him the finger on a cloud or whatever, why not? If he were real, he'd know all about what I think of him already, what I'd said about him and the one true religion, I'm not about to piss him off any more than I already have, am I? Sure, I might be terrified, but I would also be entirely convinced I'm hallucinating anyway, since that has a lot of precedent instead of literally none. I guess telling him to fuck off would be more of a symbolic gesture.

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

Gay Bryne is a nob head though.

 

[Alienous]

Isn't it ironic that God's response to Stephen Fry would probably be "Gay, burn"?

 

[Gr1mLock]

This is the perfect 'Where is your god now?' gif.

 

[BowieZ]

Of course, it does seem odd and unjust that the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve would trickle down to all of humanity, but they were supposed to be the perfect representatives of humanity. If the quintessential human fails the test, how can any other variety of human presume their innocence?

But let's just think about this argument for more than a second. (Not saying you believe in it of course.)

For what conceivable reason would an omniscient deity create two flawed test subjects?

He (a) creates beings susceptible to temptation. He also (b) allows temptation to exist (either incompetent in allowing the Devil to run amok, or a deliberate trap). The beings are successfully tempted.

The logic here is that therefore: thousands of years of punishment shall rain upon the billions of innocent children of these two tempted individuals who failed their test, not simply that God ought cancel and adjust his experiment.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I always found the "there is evil in the world"-argument against god kinda weak.
I agree with the "wouldn't want to get in on his terms" though. I don't like judgemental people and god is like the grandmaster of judgemental people.

 

[Krev]

"But there's evil!!??"

p boring, mr fry

More like 'but there's insects that eat the human eye and bone cancer in children"
Can you present an interesting counter-argument?

 

[Zakalwe]

That's pretty much exactly what I would have said.

I love this man.

That new gif is incredible. Thank you Stephen.

 

[Alienous]

More like 'but there's insects that eat the human eye and bone cancer in children"
Can you present an interesting counter-argument?

God allows this evil, and though it may present challenges for us the jubilation we feel in triumphing over these challenges outweighs the despair. Could we truly cherish our sight if it could not be lost? We think cancer is destructive but when you really think about it how many people have been brought together for the common goal of good in an attempt to beat it?

Spoiler

lolno

I sort of prefer Jim Norton's brashness at this. *NSFW audio*

 

[Africanus]

Confronted with not only the knowledge that they are fundamentally wrong about virtually everything that they have ever believed, but also that they face the unimaginable awe of an omnipotent being, who has looked across space, time, reality and existence itself, contemplated this individuals worth with absolute knowledge, and found them wanting, you really think a militant atheist is going to hold their head high, tip the fedora and throw down an insult? Give me a break. Staring down an omnipotent being with wry witticisms is little more than an anti-theists wet dream. They'd shit their pants twice, kneel down in their own excrement, and make shit-angels while begging for mercy like anyone else. One cannot fathom the entity itself, let alone their reaction when confronted by it. Especially if you've spent your life actively pissing it off. I don't think I have words that could do justice to the undiluted fear that would encapsulate me in that position. Fry's got a lot of good to say on a lot of topics, but here, he's wearing himself as a hat.

The point about it is, one can change in an instant with new information. I'm not particularly militant but even I would ask certain heated questions if faced with such a God. But once more, they'd be dying, so begging for mercy just makes one grovel till their death. Besides, you already died once, so you'd already know how relatively painless it is.

Also, as an aside, we can do without the "Fedora" drivel.

 

[Zakalwe]

Also he isn't just saying "there is evil in the world so god is bad". He is asking "what kind of creature would create an existence that made so many innocent things needlessly suffer".

It's to test us? Why create us with the inherent need to be tested.

This idea of God knows the outcome to everything anyway so the test itself is utterly pointless.

The only possible results (unless this god is not all powerful, of course) are that the being is a sadist and/or is utterly insane.

 

[SamVimes]

If I wanted to design an interesting universe, yes, it would include some measure of suffering.

Whether you make the universe a Dark Souls or a Kirby's Air Ride in terms of challenge is a design choice... But we can easily see how a universe with increased challenges can bring increased enjoyment with the story, the development of those who undertake these challenges, the urgency to try and succeed knowing that there is a fail condition, etc.

A universe without some struggle is incoherant... Just a formless void with no reason to do anything. Why even make creation in that case?

yeah the world is shitty but god was really bored the day he made it

 

[Zakalwe]

If I wanted to design an interesting universe, yes, it would include some measure of suffering.

Whether you make the universe a Dark Souls or a Kirby's Air Ride in terms of challenge is a design choice... But we can easily see how a universe with increased challenges can bring increased enjoyment with the story, the development of those who undertake these challenges, the urgency to try and succeed knowing that there is a fail condition, etc.

A universe without some struggle is incoherant... Just a formless void with no reason to do anything. Why even make creation in that case?

That's rational from a position that only knows this way to exist.

If the world were perfect we would be something else, our appreciation would be different. That doesn't mean it would be lesser.

We cannot comprehend what that would be like to be utterly free from pain and suffering and negative emotions and traits. We apply reason from our flawed position. The reasoning is good only because we are forced to exist within this place and make do.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

This is the best thread ever. And I've seen some good threads.

 

[Conor_Fool]

God damn that reaction is funny

 

[VanMardigan]

More like 'but there's insects that eat the human eye and bone cancer in children"
Can you present an interesting counter-argument?

An argument against the problem of evil? No, I don't think Christians have ever thought of it. You got us.

 

[Zakalwe]

An argument against the problem of evil? No, I don't think Christians have ever thought of it. You got us.

Again, it's not just "There is evil = bad".

It's "what would the creature be like that created an existence with so much needless suffering".

It's not a brand new question, no one is saying that.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Stephen Fry with the great reply, and the interviewer sitting there, regretting ever asking the question. Loved it!

 

[pfkas]

bone cancer is not 'evil'.

 

[SamVimes]

bone cancer is not 'evil'.

Yeah i met him at a party and he seemed cool, definitely a misunderstood guy.

 

[CountAntonius]

^ lol

This man has literally no lips.

 

[markot]

An argument against the problem of evil? No, I don't think Christians have ever thought of it. You got us.

Not something you've been able to answer to any decent degree.

Also, there is no evil in nature. Evil can only exist in nature by design. A lion targets and eats a young injured buffalo because it's hungry and it's the easiest target. Evil creates this sort of system based on suffering for survival, when it could have not done so.

God created a system where a lot of life needs to kill a lot of other life to survive. Life that is capable of fear and pain and suffering.

 

[bannedmelon]

bone cancer is not 'evil'.

But what if some dude just invented it knowing exactly what it would do and that's why it exists. He'd be a pretty fuckin evil dude, eh?

An argument against the problem of evil? No, I don't think Christians have ever thought of it. You got us.

Go ahead and provide us with one, then. This sounds like 'my argument is that there are arguments out there... somewhere...'

The definition of omnipotence is a controversial point in theology and philosophy. The extent of God's powers over paradoxical things is a source of serious debate. It's not a case of misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.

I'm aware that there IS some higher level debate about it, and it's probably worth looking into, but every single time I personally have had any argument down that path, it's been because of people who maintain that god can do in fact literally anything ever. I guess that comes with being only a hobbyist at theological debate.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I've heard plenty of christians argue against things like the problem of evil and similar things because they just don't get what 'omnipotent' means. If we pretend there could be an omnipotent being, there's literally nothing it couldn't do, even paradoxical things.

The definition of omnipotence is a controversial point in theology and philosophy. The extent of God's powers over paradoxical things is a source of serious debate. It's not a case of misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.

 

[VanMardigan]

Again, it's not just "There is evil = bad".

It's "what would the creature be like that created an existence with so much needless suffering".

I think the term "needless" would be one point of contention of Christians would ever bother to get off their lazy butts and respond.

Not something you've been able to answer to any decent degree.

What have your read on the matter from Christian sources?

Go ahead and provide us with one, then.

There is no response that is adequate, right?

 

[Krev]

There is no response that is adequate, right?

Your replies feel inadequate without one.

 

[kmax]

Oh God...

 

[VanMardigan]

Your replies feel inadequate without one.

It's not easy coming up with one now. If I had thought of this before....

 

[bannedmelon]

It's not easy coming up with one now. If I had thought of this before....

This would have been a good time to think of one.

An argument against the problem of evil? No, I don't think Christians have ever thought of it. You got us.

 

[markot]

It's not easy coming up with one now. If I had thought of this before....

You could just post a link. Or say what you mean.

Or are you trying to increase suffering and make a point?

 

[Zakalwe]

I think the term "needless" would be one point of contention of Christians would ever bother to get off their lazy butts and respond.

Absolutely.

But then we get into the debate about omnipotence, and if this god is all powerful then why the need for a test, etc...

Perfectly happy to debate it if they say he's imperfect and governed by rules too. If he's all powerful then he's a lunatic.

 

[theJohann]

For what conceivable reason would an omniscient deity create two flawed test subjects?

The logic here is that therefore: thousands of years of punishment shall rain upon the billions of innocent children of these two tempted individuals who failed their test, not simply that God ought cancel and adjust his experiment.

Following my postulate, I would argue that these test subjects were not at all flawed. They were theoretically the best possible representation of humankind. For example, if I wanted to conduct a survey to discover how many people believe Y, and I really want them to answer "yes", I do not ask only the people who I think will say "yes" and avoid the people who I think will say "no". I would definitely not tamper with the data after I have collected them, no matter how unhappy I am with the results. If I did, I would have altered the entire experiment in order to come to my desired conclusion. Similarly, I doubt God would want to fix this experiment to attain a preferable result.

Certainly, there are many other factors worth debating in regards to this "experiment", such as the existence of free will, or whether God knows and/or predestines the future, and so on.

 

[markot]

Following my postulate, I would argue that these test subjects were not at all flawed. They were theoretically the best possible representation of humankind. For example, if I wanted to conduct a survey to discover how many people believe Y, and I really want them to answer "yes", I do not ask only the people who I think will say "yes" and avoid the people who I think will say "no". I would definitely not tamper with the data after I have collected them, no matter how unhappy I am with the results. If I did, I would have altered the entire experiment in order to come to my desired conclusion. Similarly, I doubt God would want to fix this experiment to attain a preferable result.

Certainly, there are many other factors worth debating in regards to this "experiment", such as the existence of free will, or whether God knows and/or predestines the future, and so on.

That only works of God is an objective observer.

He isn't in any abrahamic faith.

You can't put a mouse through a maze and then torture it forever for going down the wrong path.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

bone cancer is not 'evil'.

No, but a theoretical person who came up with bone cancer as a thing for people to endure just 'cos probably is.

 

[Zakalwe]

You can't put a mouse through a maze and then torture it forever for going down the wrong path.

Yes you can.

It makes you sadistic, though.

 

[leadbelly]

The definition of omnipotence is a controversial point in theology and philosophy. The extent of God's powers over paradoxical things is a source of serious debate. It's not a case of misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.

Yeah. It's actually an extremely complicated subject with no definitive answer. The question of relative truth vs absolute truth, for instance. Does the Universe even exist at all? Is 'beginning and end' evidence of the unreality of things? That being 'real' requires permanence. Maybe the finite nature of things are but a temporary illusion in the sea of infinite nothingness.

What you can say is that it is relatively true, in that from our perspective it is very real. However. from the view of absolute truth maybe it is but a dream, an illusion. All that exists is infinite nothingness. All that exists is god.

On what grounds do we argue exactly?

 

[Langdon Alger]

I can understand your objection... But dispense with the word "game". I'm less talking about the creation of objects that thrill advanced primates like ourselves, and more talking about the fundamental concepts that arise when you are programming virtual environments.

I posit that I am not talking about the biology of humans... I am talking about the fundamental rules that go into the creation of spaces.

When you create virtual environments ("game" or not), those without limitations are completely unengaging. If you have objects that behave without rules, it's uninteresting. And I would say that fail conditions, hardships, etc are limitations that make the "play" coherent.

If you can fail to hit a ball into a hole, hitting a ball into a hole is a gratifying feat. And that may be a fact that applies to this and any universe: if something is difficult, doing that thing becomes interesting.

In a world without failure, success is uninteresting. I think that's an element that is true beyond biology, evolution, humans. And I think it fully explains why any creator (which I dont believe in) would include the possibility of failure in his created environment.

Those are actually some pretty bold claims. I don't know if things like 'interest' and 'engagment' are objectively out there in the universe outside of people's or other animal's brains, let alone outside of biology as a whole. I think the stuff you're talking about here is completley based on biology.

 

[Goodstyle]

Oi, that Problem of Evil has always been a challenging concept.

 

[Calabi]

I'm an atheist... But I always thought the answer to "why does God allow suffering" is plainly obvious.

Try writing a story without conflict.

Try programming a game without obstacles and fail conditions.

Duh.

Suffering is not conflict though. Whole families can be wiped out with no meaning or anyone left to remember them. People can be trapped in there bodies paralysed for the rest of there lives and then die. They can be blind for the rest of there lives and be dependant/burden on those around them. They can be struck down with no possibility of overcoming the obstacles.

Even if there is some sort of conflict in suffering a loving god that want's to watch us suffer so we can live eternally in heaven makes no sense. He's either a bastard or he doesnt exist.

 

[Scoot2005]

That was awesome.