Hi chromechris, I too, am still quite a new forum-poster. So I hope you can be understanding of my response and ideas to your argument.

One important thing to point out is that physically, your parents created you.
God has known about you for thousands of years and knew he would create you long before you were made, and that your parents would be the ones to make you. And he picked and created these situations.
Even if God didn’t exist but the world did, you still wouldn’t technically have a say in whether or not you existed- this would be at the fault of your parents if this is what you think.

I’d like to think that God does not force his presence upon you. You have a choice whether or not to believe in him. This can be assumed to be included with free will.
Some people that are not theists might just believe that karma is how the world is run, or whatever they wish to believe, that there is a cycle to life. But whatever these beliefs are, there are always things that don’t exactly line up with what we are wanting for ourselves, or our own plans. People will always like to find something to put the blame on, since it is frustrating.

Some people would also say that it’s possible that God allows things to happen in your life that you do not necessarily agree with because it is important to your end-goal self, who you are meant to be. However this is less about your argument and more about the Problem of Evil, a whole other topic altogether.

Also, I know of no people whose parents drop them as soon as they turn 18. Maybe I have just been blessed in this sense. Some people might be thrown into authority of their own lives much earlier or much later, because this example varies so much- I don’t necessarily know that this could be included in your argument, perhaps another example should be used. Seeing as how most parents still take part in taking care of their child in some kind of aspect. And I wouldn’t necessarily think that the relationship you explained to be considered as “moral,” I would think that parents continuing to be caring would be more moral than the example you provided. Parents are still parents forever and ever into eternity. Would you argue that you wish you didn’t have parents as well if you think this way? If that were the case than you would be wishing that you did not exist. Would you argue that only your parents are the ones that “created” you?

Also many argue that God gives humans free will, which I will argue as well. Which means to me, that yes he does know what your life will consist of but does not “run you” as a slave-owner, as you stated. Did you learn this while you were a Christian? If not, I would be very surprised seeing as how it is an important part of theism.

You COULD make this argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is passable. Along with that, the connection between technology and God is lost on me.

Seeing as how most theists consider God to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good, technology isn’t technically any of these things and does not have the ability to be so.
I would make the argument that humans have always been good at creating, just in different ways and it has evolved through different vessels.

I would also argue that God would not create beings that could match his all-powerfulness. Attached to this, with the God that theists think of, he would not create humans to be able to recreate the abilities of God Himself. Also it is not God’s only role in the universe to simply create. His beings have abilities of their own, I’m not sure that the things you argue that technology creates have their own abilities.

Are you arguing that because some of the technology that has been created has the potential to create on its own, we are imitating God? Imitating or attempting to imitate is much different than “creating god on earth.”

Perhaps a more detailed definition of “creating” is necessary in this context. I also think very specific examples are necessary in a vague argument such as this if you are wanting to have a strong solution. What kind of technology are you specifically talking about?
There needs to be an exact personified example of what you are alluding to in order for it to be a stronger argument.

There would need to be a build up of an argument to how we were put on this earth to create a “technological god.” What is the definition of God that you are using here?

What you explain when it comes to this sensation is a possibility. However, I’d like to argue that you would have to include the argument of whether or not God exists.

Let’s say, for example, that God DOES exist on this earth and created humans to have the feeling that they need a deeper purpose or reason for believing in something, whether this be produced by chemicals, a straightforward explanation, or the actual presence of God. We could argue that maybe he would use this “sensation” as a way to get people to search for him, or to bring them closer to him.

But if this world specifically does have God, then how could we imagine what another world would be like if he wasn’t present and we didn’t have that feeling? What theists would argue is that you couldn’t necessarily imagine a world like this because God IS the reason that this feeling exists. Which could come back the actual world we live in.

How could we assume that people would still feel this feeling if there was no God?
You could also potentially include an argument about various worlds in order to further this.

It is possible that this feeling is only a human feeling that just comes along with being one, and that if God did not exist, the feeling still would. But couldn’t it also be possible that God could not exist and humans would not having this feeling? An important part to this argument is that I am not sure that it would be possible for God to exist and the feeling to not, it seems that these two things are paired.
If we were to assume that God does exist, it would make sense that he would create us specifically in this way. If he didn’t, many people could possibly miss out on pursuing him.

This adaption you talk about, could be argued to have grown from a slow disconnect from God over time.However, I do believe that you could also argue that there is a possibility that people gained this feeling slowly over time and God just so happened to fill the role- like you said. But when exactly this started would be important to note on this side of the argument. I wouldn’t say that it’s necessarily “apparent” that things could have happened this way- it would depend on how you looked at it. It is also possible that God was already around and known by many, and that they just provided the answer of God to those that had the sensation but didn’t know why yet.

I believe that I understand the gist of your argument. However it is somewhat vague. Why would having both human free will and evil be the best possible world? Simply because that is the one we live on now, and God created it?

According to skeptical theists, they might say that it is the evil that pushes us towards a better relationship with God. I think it is important to note when making an argument like this, an example of how some believe that evil is at times introduced into our lives to benefit us and our character.

When you say “So if having human freedom is better than having no evil, God would allow its existence,” it seems like you are stating that having human freedom would be better without evil, however that is the world we are in as you describe it in the outline of your argument.

Because we brought evil in, according to the story of Adam and Eve, wouldn’t that technically be on us for ruining our own human freedom?
It is also possibly according to multiverse theodicy that God could have created other universes that have more human freedom and less evil, but like you said, maybe this is the best one.

It seems like with premise 1 of your argument, as you said, we wouldn’t necessarily understand what the best possible world would be since we are simply humble humans that have no way of knowing what God considers to be moral or evil in his own definition.

I’d like to believe that we do live on the best possible world, and that the evil we encounter is meant to benefit us most of the time but I still think that the problem of evil is not fully solved in that way.

I think I follow what you mean, and I agree. It makes sense that in order for morality to be “true”, it must come from a place of free choice.

However, let’s say you are responding to the free will associated with religion. What would be your perspective on this kind of free choice? Would you say that those that are within a religion don’t have free choice because of their adherence to their moral law of their religion? Then aren’t there generally moral expectations of that religion? For example, Christians should give grace to others, that’s one of the important moral grounds it is set upon. Yes it is up to the individual to do what they will with their free will (if it does exist) but wouldn’t that be considered a hindrance on free will if they followed the rules and regulations of what they believed in? Or is it free will that they are following the religion at all?
I guess it depends on which one you start with first.
That would mean that if you ascribed to let’s say, Christianity, then you would be ascribing to certain moral ideals that you would need to uphold. Would this be an encroachment on the free will you are describing? Just wondering on your thoughts of this kind of connection.
When it comes to moral norms of a religion, would this mean that free will doesn’t actually exist at all?

Correct me if I’m wrong but what you're saying is that following the put in place moral norms doesn’t make you a “moral” or good person, but that what one does with their free will does?
I think in this context a more in depth definition of what you consider to be free will or free choice would be helpful in understanding your statements.

CincPhil,

I disagree with your first premise. Objective moral values and duties do not have to revolve around God or belief thereof. If this were true, then would those that are not yet informed of theism or maybe don’t believe in it, have no moral values or duties? Would these moral values be a specific faith base (Christian?), because if so- not all the people on Earth are informed of the exact same religion or same God or Gods. How does the appearance of objective moral values and duties connect with the presence of God? Why does God specifically create these things that would determine whether or not they were here?

I’d argue that many moral values and duties are humanly created and implemented. Would this mean that the God themselves was putting these ideas into the humans minds? If that were the case, then every single example of a moral value or duty would have to be accredited to God. Is this what you mean?

Interested in learning more.

Ballarck,

I have to disagree with your second premise. If God is omniscient, as you said in P1, and then stated that this God would be able to do anything within the realm of possible, or would operate within logical constraints, then this God wouldn’t be omniscient or omnipotent.

If the God, is omniscient, they would be able to do all things and know all things. And when using such terms, using other terms such as “possible” or “logical” is unsubstantial. Because as a being that is not omnipotent or omniscient, we would not be able to put grounds on the God’s characteristics as you laid out. Why would God need to do “random acts,” if they were omnipotent and omniscient? Using terms like these seem limiting, and paradoxical with the God that you just described. I’m also not sure I understand what you mean by saying that “omnipresence and omniscience are functionally equivalent.” Do mean that they are weighted in the same manner in terms of this God’s qualities?
I’m not sure how I follow how these Premises lead up to your conclusion but I was thinking this was maybe what you were getting at?

P1- God is omniscient, so God knows what it is like to be both human and Godlike, therefore God is equivalent to humans.

P2- God is omnipotent, so God has the ability to do anything (within restraints).

Conclusion- Therefore God is both omniscient an omnipotent and does not follow a human basis of time…
However?

This is where I get stuck, would this mean that God is just like a human or not?

To come back to specifically the Premise 2, if a God was omniscient, would it even be possible that they could perform some kind of “random act?” Because then the God would know when they were going to do something at all times.

I can see where you might be going with this, I just think some revisions when it comes to the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence would strengthen your argument.