It does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial — Tom Storm

Of course it doesn't. If they hold the truth then you don't know it. If they tell you, then you know it, and can use it for your own devices - beneficial/harmless or harmful. It's only beneficial if chosen to be so. But those that make the choice are culpable for the consequences as they are aware (truth-knowers).

Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity. — Janus

No it doesn't. It may be pragmatic to be an oppressive fascist dictator as its a very effective way of exerting your will and getting things done. Doesn't mean that it's moral despite how effective it might be on paper.

Morality is not about pragmatism, its about empathy. Its being able to "walk in the shoes" of another and see why your actions may harm them.

That's the difference between taking power by force (pragmatic but not ethical) and asking for power (more cumbersome but ethical).

If you are given the option to do anything with absolutely no consequences: You can go about it morally or practically. Practically one can steal. You wont be penalised in this case after all. Morally, one can reason as to why there would be greater overall benefit if they oversee the resource.

So, I see the religious aspects as being unnecessary to morality, rationally speaking — Janus

Religions are what happen when a significant truth is appointed deep and enduring value to a group such that a lifestyle and culture grows around it. They're not neccessary, sure, but they're are the name of the phenomenon that grows around fairly universal, wise and ethical (therefore agreeable) insights.

Scientific method is another dogma that grew around around truth - that what is stable/consistent, repeatable and can be tested/is observable, is likely to endure as such (be objective) reliable/useful/informative.

It's not called a religion because by its exploration of truth is narrowed or focused toward the object. Religions on the other hand permit a subjective or personifiable aspect of truth (its anthropomorphism into the concept of a "God").

*Also note that science is ideally steered by ethics. So even though its not a religion it is essentially "contemplate and expose the truth without doing harm" - a close parallel to religious dogma -but the methodology/parameters are set differently.

You are trying to limit your account so that the flaws dont show — Tom Storm

I'm not trying to limit it. It is vague /generalised already. What highly specified dogma have I asserted other than that if a fundamental truth exists and is embodied, it will be persecuted and attempts to destroy it will likely be made even when there are alternative approaches available.

If it advocates for slavery and genocide and violates the rights of minorities and women, then this truth is problematic and quite possibly evil. — Tom Storm

It doesn't. The truth is just facts/knowledge, telling it is education and honesty. Concealing it is deceit/lying. And ignoring it is ignorant. Simple.

Knowledge by itself doesn't commit any crimes. It just is. It exists despite what is done with it -much like money does. What people use knowledge for (intention) is when the truth can be used for malice (eg the truth of nuclear fission being used to create the atomic bomb). No one is going to argue the truth about nuclear physics is evil just because of atomic bombs. The truth didn't do that. People did that using it (through intention).

Remember truth has a knowledge aspect and an ethical aspect. Creating a bomb is using knowledge of truth without acknowledging the ethical implications (the truth of harm/devastation) that comes with the bomb.

The context is everything in this thought experiment. As they say, the devil is in the detail. — Tom Storm

You're absolutely right. However context is different for everyone because language is interpretative and abstract concepts like "God" are heavily loaded.

I have contextualised the OP as best and as succinctly as I can and yet here we are talking about abortion, slavery and women's rights. You dont like organised religions. I get it. Neither do I. Theyre riddled with corruptions. But im qualifying a God concept in a very simple and straight forward way with very rational and predictable consequences and cite that it reflects a very small portion of scriptures -not the entirety of scripture.

Otherwise, please highlight where these words: abortion, slavery, women's rights etc appeared in the OP. I'll be waiting.

Indeed - there's still those matters of foreskin, the rights of women, abortion, etc, etc. How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible? — Tom Storm

I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case.

Matters like abortion, women's rights etc are all important and need due discussion but have little to do with the core of what was set out in the OP.

That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion. — Janus

How complex do you want morality to be? Would you like it obscure, esoteric, out of reach, unintuitive?

I think you'll find most religions are -at their core - when removing all the arbitrary fluff/tripe and dogma, about doing right by one another. That is hard to argue,.unless you lack any regard/empathy for people- in which case I'm sure one could conjure all sorts of rationalisation for not doing right by one another.

Are you withdrawing the claim that first person claims to be God can be found in the Scriptures? — Paine

No I'm not withdrawing it. Proceed as you will.

What you say here is not relevant to the point. It is always humans that decide whether something is the "word of God", as opposed to being something that just personally inspires them. — Janus

Sure, humans decide what is deemed "Word of God". Is that neccessarily opposed to what inspires them? Why so? Must they be in opposition, at odds?

If someone was willing to put their own wellbeing on the line to spread knowledge/truth, cooperation and foster good intentions, and gave you a choice to agree with this agenda, ignore it or oppose it, what would you choose?

The original OP outlines the 3 options and the consequences for your consideration.

Putting aside the various folk who presume to speak for God, that is different from a human being saying: "I am God." — Paine

They are very different, you're correct.

In one case we have those "allegedly" speaking on behalf of a God with no evidence. On the other hand you have the one saying "they are God" and the embodiment of the evidence. "You see me don't you?"

Then people say "Prove it." They say, well, those that believe me without need for proof will garner me the limelight. The rest will attack me relentlessly, and I'll be murdered despite only proposing we treat one another as equals, but I'm happy to succumb to the viscious abuse of the worst of you to instill some semblance of the message that we need to do better by one another.

Witnessing the person being bullied to death by the world then serves to echo their point, right? I mean, that's surely fuel for self reflection one would imagine, and if it isn't - then it speaks volumes of the lack of empathy.

Imagine someone saying "let's be nice" and being beaten bloodied for the very popularity of that sentiment because it threatens the most hostile/selfish people out there. Would you not feel bad for them?

There's not many things I would consider godly, but such an act is certainly and undeniably selfless in my eyes.

I see evangelism as being essential to Christianity. "The Word" is understood to be the word of God, and it is believed that those who accept it will be saved and those who don't will be damned. So those who accept the Word accept that it is the ultimate truth for all, and that the "good news" should be spread so that everyone has access to it. — Janus

My interpretation of this is that whoever is "saved" or "damned" is up to their own conscience/moral compass. Guilt and shame is a powerful and self-inflicted force.

Witnessing someone championing human rights and being mercilessly tortured for their outspoken and brave defence of the people against those with a more perverse agenda might evoke guilt and shame in those that didn't feel they did enough to stand by what they felt was inherently right - regardless of whether their hesitation was out of fear / self preservation or whatever.

In this sense, when one is exposed to the "word" so to speak they become their own judge and executioner, based on their inner conflict and sense of morality rather than some almighty non-earthly father/judge.

For me it's human nature, it's own ideals, and its own resulting consequences. Nothing more nothing less..

Where in the Scriptures does someone declare this? — Paine

Well just to note a few: in Christianity, Jesus declares he is the son of God (has a direct relationship) and is interpreted as the earthly embodiment of said entity. In Islam, Muhammmed declares himself a voice of God- channeling the word.

The dilemma of the OP however is somewhat universal based on Human nature, and could be applied to several historical instances with the same overriding result - a refuge in obscurity or overt proclamations followed by subsequent martyrdom

Anyone who decides to take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread.
6m — Janus

However, one can only decide for themselves whether they wish to spread it. And if they do share it, they too can be ignored or actively chastised/put down/oppressed.

I fail to see how they decide for "everyone" beyond themselves specifically, the only thing they decide is who they tell in their immediate circle. After all they're only responsible for their own actions.

One cannot predict the reception of a message by others.

And if one cannot predict the choices of others, the cannot decide the choices of others. They can merely offer them.

And who propagates it? One person cannot propagate the "Word" by themselves alone. Especially if they're ignored by everyone they communicate with (option 2). It takes two (or more) to tango (see option 1).

Things only spread by numbers, by co-operation and accordance, not by ignorance (option2) or silencing (option 3) but everyone makes a choice in the end.

Accepting that principle, it follows that no one should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone that it ought to be spread. — Janus

And no one has done that. Choice is the principle of the trilemma set out into the OP.

One has the free will to share it, ignore it or oppose it. But their hand is forced in making one of those three choices. However, in no instance is any single person deciding anything on behalf of everyone else.

The outcome would always be the summation of every individuals personal decision.

So you're correct despite it not really having any impact on the actual ultimatum itself.

I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same. — Tom Storm

They are not. Ignorance is a lack or avoidance of knowledge when faced with such. Knowledge is simply knowledge.

If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work — Tom Storm

But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone.

Good intentions and a lack of knowledge = reckless action. Good intentions and adequate knowledge = apt, duely considered and ethical action.

But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word? — Tom Storm

The content of the word in this case can always be expanded/ explained in more depth if required - as the Truth can be examined superficially or in depth but neither changes its quality as inherently truthful. One can explore it further before deciding or decide despite investing no effort in understanding it (blind faith -option 1 or ignorance -option 2)..

because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity — Tom Storm

Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed their own free will to a). know the truth (be taught/educated) and b). to judge how to use it themselves (autonomy):

Therefore, I don't see how any one individual should take it upon themselves to decide for everyone else that it ought not be spread. This would be assuming the role of option three of the OP - keep it to oneself and actively suppress any attempt by others to disseminate it.

and to actively work to take it down.
5m — Tom Storm

This is option three - please refer to the OP. To actively oppose the truth and its spread.

In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss? — Tom Storm

There was no mention of it leading to happiness nor satisfaction. As a passive player, your circumstances are solely contingent on others who either know the truth and impart it to you (out of good faith) , or those that keep it from you (lie to you).

What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors? — Tom Storm

It is misused - by those who take option 3: keep it to themselves. By knowing it, they have control, in the sense that they can deny it to you by knowing exactly what not to speak of. They are aware of it, and refuse to share that. Therefore all they can do is misguide/ create deceit. These are the "bad faith actors" you speak of -option 3.

I thought your third one was keep it to yourself? — Tom Storm

It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as through their action it is less and less within your sole posession. Otherwise you're merely ignoring it (neither trying to keep it unveiled nor prevent its dissemination).

"To keep a certain set of knowledge to yourself is to eradicate other potential distributors". To be ignorant/passive to the process is to merely exert non-interference".

In any case you end up choosing one of the three positions/choices set out in the OP.

According to the OP you'd be offered "the Truth." You know it by reading it, therefore you may accept it (acknowledge), ignore it (ignorance) or object to it (deny it despite knowledge of it). So to answer you, they're aren't the same. One is "I'm not even going to get into it/it has nothing to do with me (ignorance/denial) and the other is I acknowledge it but oppose it with effort/ wish to argue against it.

Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy? — Tom Storm

As you'll see from the OP there are two options other than accept: Ignore (passive) or deny (actively oppose).

You haven't offered a fourth alternative merely reiterated the preexisting choices using different phrasing which -despite somewhat arbitrary semantic differences -ultimately circles back to the same dilemma: accept, ignore or reject.

I'm such a way, any respondent cannot avoid hut make a choice (as assumption 1 + 2 highlight: that a). Everyone is a participant and b) . Their hand is forced in the matter.

Ignoring was option (2). The OP already accounts for it. — Leontiskos

Exactly. Each choice is accounted for already. One has free will to choose between the 3 choices but no free will to not choose anything. Ones hand is indeed forced. So chooses option two, demonstrating "ignorance" of the dilemma.

Nevertheless, a cynical reading is not the only option — Leontiskos

However the OP outlined a non-cynical option: option 1. In this case (with no opposition and malice) the frame is quite optimistic.

It is based on choice alone. Therefore it is neither cynical nor optimistic until those faced with the dilemma make their individual choices.

If everyone chose option 1 then there would be mutual global pride/esteem and no reason to make a martyr of the originator. That is the ideal.
The anti-ideal is that everyone opts for option 3.
And the realistic pov is that likely all three choices will be made by a population. And that people would re-elect new choices as things transpire.

Therefore it isn't inherently cynical nor optimistic, it indulges free will to pursue either case.

Trying to make it invalidate the claim or the approach is more psychologizing than philosophy. — Leontiskos

Psychology and philosophy are intersectional disciplines. I doubt one can truly separate them entirely.

I think it would apply to all truths - scientific and technological discoveries etc however there would be a frame change here. The stakes/consequences of not sharing these truths/illuminations would be different - for example social inequalities in wealth, healthcare, and eroding autonomy, further "not everyone would be a participant (ie aware of the process p(aying out before them), and there would be know prescience/ premonition of one's own murder involved/ no undertaking of full responsibility for everyone's actions with your own life as the payment for such an endeavour.

I’m God. If I say it’s four, it’s four. — T Clark

Fair enough. Can't argue with God I guess. I'll just have to go back to re-learning the number line. "God forbid" I ever need more than 2 things but less than 4 things or need to conceptualise a triangle or triad.

I would wipe out the entire universe and just be.
1d — EyE

Interesting. How would you characterise this being outside the realm of a universe? How would you distinguish it from "nothingness/total absence of being"?

A destructive God? Interesting, because most deities are basically otherwise. People believe in God because it creates life and things. — javi2541997

Isn't destruction and creation mutual and necessary opposites? As in for state A to transform into state B, state A is altered/augmented or entirely replaced.

I was under the impression that every interaction is the loss/destruction of what was before and the creation of what is next. Even in the creation of a first thing, there is the loss/destruction of its absence. Feels yinyang to me

Yes. Villain-victim, parent-child, husband-wife, rich-poor, etc. But I think the biggest is villain-victim. There's soooo much emotion fueling that relationship. — frank

Indeed there is a powerful emotive narrative embedded in the villain - victim dichotomy. An obvious follow up question in this respect is where does the "Hero" fall in this arrangement between victim and villain. As most understand a hero to neither be a victim nor a villain. Furthermore most of those faith-inclined idealise God as a Hero.

However depending on who you ask, God can also be a villain - an omniscient, omnipotent entity that doesn't answer your begging or rectify your suffering. For others God is the perfect victim - wherever unjust persecution and sacrifice appears in writings on the topic.

In the sense you describe, "God" is forbidden to humans. Some form of innate violation of the laws of existence.

And every attempt we make to bridge the gap, narrow the distance between our own disatisfying/imperfect realism and a seemingly perfect ideology, a God - an absolute or fundamental source of knowledge, power, authority, justice, order, control and origin seems to lead to our own demise and suffering - as you pointed out with the various parables or analogies/old stories.

Why would you say that is? Why ought an ideal be forbidden to us? Is it supposed to be ignored? Dismissed? Permanently unknown? Approached yet never reached? Is it to serve as a lucrative tease but nothing further?

Four things 1) I would be omnipotent 2) I would be omniscient 3) 4) I wouldn't care what you thought or wanted — T Clark

That's three things.
Are you omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and indifferent or does omnipresence not take part in this tetrad?

I'm not sure we can demonstrate that humans have access to reality as such or what reality even is. Isn't reality just a word we use for our attempts to make sense of things in the world we experience? It isn't surprising that we 'find' inherent logic - patterns and regularities in our experience since we seem to be pattern-finding creatures, a product or our relentless sense making. — Tom Storm

Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it. But we are as much reality as the external environment. A technicality easily overlooked but not insignificant.

We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. We are made of it from the bottom up and somewhere there along the hierarchy is the emergence of a sense of separation and individuality, subjectivity.

I'm a believer in the "as above so below" concept that fundamental phenomena reiterate and permeate all levels of reality regardless of the object - subject dichotomy. There are cycles, rhythms, fractals and geometry in our structure as sentient beings and these same basic patterns are found everywhere throughout nature. Echoes as it were of some innate law or building blocks that are as consistent and universal as they are seemingly diverse through their various reiterations.

That's the "intelligence" I refer to that is both shared by the "external" as it is by the "internal". They're not separable (we are dynamic and have inputs and and outputs both sensory/actionably and materially speaking) with our external environment.

However despite not being separable in any absolute or permanent sense, we still contend with such things as the hard problem of consciousness which makes the objective mechanics of the universe feel alien to the emergent fuzzy warm gloop of experience, even if the ability to be conscious is demonstrated by the universe through life systems.

I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." That is...the universe according to each of us is each a unique framework or universe concept - a psychological multiverse (personalities/minds).

Sounds like a boozy beer fest. I'm in.

Give everyone all of the knowledge they need to live the life they want. — Sir2u

Do you think the disparity between how much knowledge any individual desires would cause issues? Perhaps person A wants omniscience and Person B wants just enough knowledge to survive in blissful ignorance. How do you resolve privacy issues, intellectual property etc when some people know almost everything and others know little.

: Have a meeting with they whole world, or worlds, to ascertain if the people are happy and if they have any other needs or wants — Sir2u

Do you think everyone would feel happy being provided with everything they could possibly want? Do you think things would lose value, boredom would kick in? Do you think people would still have a sense of purpose or motivation to work towards anything? Perhaps some people will always be unhappy regardless of what you offer them?

Day one, week two: Now what the fuck am I going to do now? — Sir2u

Haha. An important statement. Would you get bored with your limitless abilities and time? Would there be a certain angst or dread that you did so much in 1 week and have billions or maybe trillions of years left on whatever clock you decide. What might you do differently if you were disenfranchised with being this being forever?

I'm God, for God's sake. Don't pester me with details and logistics. — T Clark

I guess that in itself is quite revealing/illuminating.

You would be constantly pestered for details and logistics by not only me but everyone else, if you were indeed God and we could speak to you. Universal management does sound exhausting. Better you than I haha.

We are separated by our histories.
I would reach towards, but I wouldn’t need to try to become it, as we would be completely different in the ways I would prefer and similar in our abilities. — Igitur

Interesting. So you'd keep some distance basically. Reach towards or approach it (perhaps through communing or contemplating) but would never fully embrace/become it -keeping those distinctions between you that are preferable and desired whilst acknowledging your similarities on a personal level?

Correct me if I'm wrong. Just here trying to interpret as best I can.

A lot of stories about Supreme Beings include reports of what happens when you get too uppity. I am inclined to err on the side of caution. — Paine

Very true. You'd certainly run into problems if you were a physical/tangible God. For example if you were a God on this planet you would likely make enemies very quickly and be harassed, defamed, accused, begged, assaulted due to everything that makes us human -desire for answers, desperation, jealousy, ego and narcissism, the rat race for power and authority.

So if you were a supreme being on earth I'd ve very concerned for your wellbeing personally.

Perhaps existing in anonymity is the more responsible/cautious choice.

It's fun being human. Don't you think so? — frank

It is.

I would secretly be everything. — frank

Interesting. What I gather from this is you would have some sort of duality in your existence. On one side you would be a singular thing (human) and on the other end of the scale you would be everything (secretly).

How would you sustain this secrecy, this pseudo-separation? Would it be in the paradoxes, contradictions and delineations between things or selves. Is it the free will of others and diversity of opinions, the non-accordnace of individuals that masks your double nature?

Probably nothing. It is the only way I could keep living in the hopes and desires of believers. Their needed belief that X could happen anytime is what myself – as God – would make me alive. — javi2541997

I think i see what you mean. So long as you do nothing, believers in your existence are free to imagine or contemplate your true nature? I suppose if you take any certain/exact definition it probably wouldnt satisfy every believers desires, hopes and dreams. You would effectively become impersonal, no longer a unique concept in everyone's minds. In a way that is a sort of death - a death of the diversity of personal understandings.

The phrase "Never meet you heroes" comes to mind -a sort of disappointment or dissatisfaction between the dissonance of the imagined and the actual.

I agree. There’s certainly beauty and elegance in mathematical formulas describing the physical world and this is no mere chance but the product of an intelligence which predates the current universe. — kindred

Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic. Even the word logic comes from "Logos" -a primordial entity described by the ancients.

Intelligence is linked to "order" because order confers structure, rhythm, sequence, consistency, uniformity, spatial dimensions and relationships, patterns, all of which we use to gain our bearings in a rational way.

Order (and therefore intelligence) is also related to "negative entropy" -the opposite of disorder and chaos. There are two such states cited to have significant negative entropy. The cosmological singularity (a zero entropy dimensionless state) and Life (a system of order/self organisation that opposes entropy/minimises chaos to gain stability and complexity through time.

I'm inclined to avoid placing the cosmological singularity as "before" or "predating" the current universe as if its dimensionless -time didn't exist. Therefore it doesn't make any more sense to say its before (as that is contingent on linear time).

I would say the singularity being outside of Time would be just as "close" to the start as to all points in time. Which is a bit mind bending.

I'd send anyone who intentionally killed, tortured, seriously hurt, or abused a child to North Korea permanently. — T Clark

I see, so as I understand, as a God you would hold the life and wellbeing of children in higher regard to any adult? Why is that exactly? What makes children's lives more worthy than any other (adult persons) according to you?

Would North Korea remain the same size regardless of how many people are sent there eventually leading to overpopulation, starvation and death. Or would North Korea's terrority expand to accommodate your accumulating mass of condemned people?

Would North Korea gain power and economic prosperity from the influx of forced immigration? Would the world eventually end up being all "North Korea?" After its population explodes and it conquers other countries by sheer numbers alone?

Well, before I did anything I'd need to know what happens after death. Do humans respawn or reincarnate after death? If so then I'd feel much less guilty about their deaths. Anyway, what I do with my newfound Sims would depend on my daily moods. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, by offering you the full freedom of defining a God in absolutely any capacity that you desire, I would assume the question of "whether humans respawn or reincarnate after death" is entirely your decision ie up to you.

So if you needed to know this critical information before doing anything - as you said, depending on how you qualify your deity entity this "need" can be entirely within reach. The definition you make is not limited in that sense.

What might you do with your "sims" based on your daily moods? And why would you experience days or even moods per se? Would your God concept be human in the sense of experiencing days and moods?

I would probably continue to do whatever that deity is doing, assuming this God is omniscient (as it would have some reason to do or not do something, and I would follow the same reasoning). — Igitur

So in this instance, you replace something that already existed rather than always being that thing from the get go/start? You say "continue" to do whatever that deity is doing.

So in this case your "God" concept is a particular state or thing separate to you that can be unified with, or from which you can take over responsibility/definition?

How would u say this pre-existant and you are separated? And how would you go about reaching towards and becoming it?