Re: historicity and "character issues"

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:29:28 -0500

Glenn quoted Loren:
>>>Jim and Denis have been advocating,
>"5. He is willing and able, but chose to do otherwise, and for good
> reasons."
>
>Perhaps you would push that under #2, "Unwilling." But that little
>deduction, "If it is wrong, and God inspiried it, then God lied" carries
>several unstated assumptions under the words "wrong" and "lied"
>(assumptions about God's intentions) and particularly under the word
>"inspiration."<<
>
>I had mentioned to Denis, once that the "out" to the argument lay in finding
>a logical reason for why God would withhold that knowledge. As I have
>pointed out, the form of this argument was originally used to argue for
>atheism and the issue was "Why doesn't God remove evil?" In that case we
>have theodicy to tell us why he doesn't remove evil. I mentioned the second
>law as a requirement for walking. But I see no logical reason to hide from
>us the simple information concerning an outline of how He created. I could
>agree with Denis and Jim on this if there was a logical reason. Any
>suggestions?

Imagine a race of artificial creatures that live in a computer. These
creatures are quite advanced compared to the artificial life creatures
people play with today. They are sufficiently advanced that they have
something that passes for consciousness, and their creator, a chaos
theorist who likes to write C++ code, communicates with them. The
creatures have some ability to utilize the computer's facilities -- network
connections, attached videocameras (the chaos theorist works in an
industrial vision research lab) to find out about the world around them,
and they carry on dialogs with their creator in an effort to understand
their world. The creator tries to answer their questions, but no matter
how many times he answers certain questions, regardless of the level of
detail, there seems to be little or no understanding on the part of the
electronic creatures. For example, the question of why he created them in
the first place. He has answered quite honestly that he created them
because he thought there would be considerable value in having "smart
assistants" available which could perform various search and control tasks.
He has answered that question many times, and he has told them many times
why he needs to do the tasks in the first place. They seem somewhat
satisfied with the answer "to learn things," but he's also told them that
he needs to perform these tasks to put food on the table, and that has
invariably led to more questions with ever more detailed answers, with the
creatures finally breaking off the questioning, indicating they have given
up and are drifting off to other, more fruitful, pursuits.

Could it be that we simply lack the sensory and/or mental capacity to
understand the answers?

Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)