I catch up with 300 Natter posts, there is deep philosophical discussion and I end up debating whether we are sock puppets or navel lint.

eta: sock puppy? wtf?

Yes, but in this context, it equates to saying that he has the freedom not to be all-loving.

Not obviously. One could argue that a world with just God in it is just as morally, aesthetically, and metaphysically good as a world with God and a space-time universe.

I don't see why an all-loving all-powerful god needs a universe.

I have the same question. Also, if God creates the universe doesn't that mean everything is predetermined? Time is a property of the universe so in producing the universe all of time is also created. That implies that there are no moral choices for anybody since God has crafted all events. This also brings to my mind why does the universe need a creator, it seems like then you have to ask who created the creator and it's creators all the way down. To my mind it would be more interesting to have God be a part of the universe since then you can apply the concept of time to God and introduce free will.

But not for us, Cass, the sock puppets. There's just confusion there.

Though ita did make me snork with this:

I bet ALAPG's mum is tired of telling him to stop fidgeting and to just sit down and keeps snapping at him to love everything like a good little god.

I think it's time for me to go to sleep.

It's not about creating something to love, it's about beneficence. If he has the capacity to give, then being all-loving would imply that he does so.

That's pretty much what a lot of philosophically-minded theists argue, although I would take issue with the claim, "If God has the capacity to do X, where X would be some good thing, then God does X", which seems to me to be implied by your last clause, although I might be misunderstanding you.

Who is the creation of the universe to benefit? Why is a universe better than no universe? Who suffers from its lack of existence?

The last question is irrelevant to the benefit of creating one. The answer to the first question, obviously, is the creations within it. The middle question is just a contingent one, which may have relevance to whether one regards this universe as evidence of a loving Creator, but is not relevant to the question of whether an ALAPG would want his creations to have life, and have it more abundantly.

Do you regard your life as a benefit? You have the choice, at any point in time, to continue said life or end it. Some people, of course, do make that choice. Most don't. Even fewer entities of other species make it. Empiricism is entirely the wrong way to go about such a question, but I'm curious what evidence you find to suggest your question is a serious one rather than a debating tactic.

The answer to the first question, obviously, is the creations within it.

Why? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Do you regard your life as a benefit?

A benefit to me? I have no evidence to suggest I'd be worse off if I'd never have lived, nor that I'd be worse off if I stopped living.

Do you?

Does an all-loving all-powerful god create this universe? Doesn't s/he have to create all universes? Would it be selfish not to? Is it munificent to create universes with pain and suffering and death? Is it better to live a short and miserable life than to not have lived at all?

I see nothing convincing me that to love you must create.

Not obviously. One could argue that a world with just God in it is just as morally, aesthetically, and metaphysically good as a world with God and a space-time universe.

One could, but it'd be irrelevant. The question is whether such a God gives, not whether he's aiming for a set of criteria.

That's pretty much what a lot of philosophically-minded theists argue, although I would take issue with the claim, "If God has the capacity to do X, where X would be some good thing, then God does X", which seems to me to be implied by your last clause, although I might be misunderstanding you.

It depends on whether you think you've encapsulated all relevant features of X by 'some good thing'.

Also, if God creates the universe doesn't that mean everything is predetermined? Time is a property of the universe so in producing the universe all of time is also created. That implies that there are no moral choices for anybody since God has crafted all events.

No. "God created the universe" is not the same as "God crafted all events". It would be the case in a deterministic universe, but that begs the question.

As it happens, I have a problem with the idea of a God who is active within the Universe, on grounds similar to yours, but that's not to say it's the only possible theology.

Also, if God creates the universe doesn't that mean everything is predetermined? Time is a property of the universe so in producing the universe all of time is also created. That implies that there are no moral choices for anybody since God has crafted all events. This also brings to my mind why does the universe need a creator, it seems like then you have to ask who created the creator and it's creators all the way down. To my mind it would be more interesting to have God be a part of the universe since then you can apply the concept of time to God and introduce free will.

Just because God creates a universe that is in time, it doesn't follow that he creates all of it at once. Moreover, even if God did predetermine everything, it would not necessarily follow that no one ever makes a choice for which she's morally responsible, although in my opinion that would be the consequence.

As for why the universe needs a creator, it seems like what you're asking is, "why should we believe that the universe has a creator? Why not just believe it exists, and there's no explanation for why it exists?" That's an excellent question, and it amounts basically to the demand for an argument for the existence of God. Let me first say that most contemporary philosophers would agree that there is no need to posit a God, and that the existence of evil gives us reason, perhaps decisive reason, to deny that such a being exists. Still, the kinds of reasons some contemporary philosophers give for believing in God are things like: the universe seems to be 'fine-tuned' to allow for the emergence of intelligent life, therefore it makes sense to believe there's a fine-tuner.

Why not believe there's a fine-tuner of the fine-tuner? Well, you could, although if you have a fine-tuner of the universe you're already pretty far from most atheists. That said, if the fine-tuner is necessarily existent and omnipotent, then it's logically impossible that it could have a creator, which is why a lot of people make the move from: "the universe has a designer" to "the universe has a necessarily existent, omnipotent designer".

Why? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Then why keep living? As I said, empiricism is entirely the wrong way to go about such a problem. It hardly matters what evidence you see either way on the matter; if it's not a position you can live, rather than simply propose to score points, why should I take it seriously?

Does an all-loving all-powerful god create this universe? Doesn't s/he have to create all universes? Would it be selfish not to? Is it munificent to create universes with pain and suffering and death? Is it better to live a short and miserable life than to not have lived at all?

As mentioned before, these are contingent questions relevant to the other conditional probability, of the existence of God given this Universe. Since my original statement was that I regard the two to be entirely independent of each other, what's the relevance of them here?

I see nothing convincing me that to love you must create.

t shrug Ok, if ever I start arguing that construction I'll bear that in mind.