DanArmak comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong

6 [deleted] 06 November 2012 10:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (898)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 09 November 2012 02:22:36PM *  0 points [-]

God wasn't supposed to have a reason to violate his own laws. A God that violates his own laws wouldn't be perfect.

That implies God does not create miracles - violations of his laws. And that was and is a heresy according to the Catholic church, and I imagine almost all other Christian denominations as well. The story of Christ alone is full of law-violating miracles.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 November 2012 02:45:34PM *  4 points [-]

If the Texanian government sentence a person to death you don't call the event manslaughter. The fact that the person get's sentenced to death doesn't mean that a law gets violated.

The 10 commendments contain "do not kill" but death as punishment for nearly every offence. Laws are a tricky business.

But yes, those early scientists did had a problem of being seen as heretics by the established church.

Comment author: DanArmak 09 November 2012 07:35:02PM 2 points [-]

The 10 commendments contain "do not kill" but death as punishment for nearly every offence.

That is a mistranslation. The original reads "do not murder", i.e. do not kill extrajudicially.

Comment author: shminux 09 November 2012 07:44:18PM 3 points [-]

That is a mistranslation. The original reads "do not murder", i.e. do not kill extrajudicially.

Also, it's 10 commandments not commendments :) God was apparently not overly pleased with his chosen people, certainly not enough to commend them 10 ways on the exodus well done.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 12:02:45AM *  0 points [-]

I hear it was actually closer to "do not engage in blood feud", but I don't recall where I heard that so treat it with deep suspicion. In any case, one could add "unless you're God" to these physical laws for the same effect.

(Wait, if God kills you, isn't that still extrajudicial? God isn't working for the government.)

Comment author: wedrifid 10 November 2012 01:54:04AM *  2 points [-]

(Wait, if God kills you, isn't that still extrajudicial? God isn't working for the government.)

Not really. Divine judgement qualifies for two out of three definitions of judicial right of the bat and then we have to consider that for religious purposes everyone is considered to either belong to a Theocracy under God or be a heathen enemy of the state. On top of that God's scriptures dedicate much of their content to setting up a legal system, with a book outright dedicated to "Judges". If it wasn't for the fact that God just doesn't exist I think it'd be fair to say that he claimed precedence on "Judicial" a long time back and human states just borrow the concept.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 November 2012 06:31:51PM 2 points [-]

You know, you're right.

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 November 2012 03:03:38PM *  1 point [-]

Ahh, that makes more sense.

... wait, does that imply there are non-supernatural (ie heaven and hell) sources of magic? Because I can think of other reasons why you wouldn't want to do business with a demon. Y'know, the whole "wants to torture your soul forever" thing might cause some issues.

EDIT: that is to say, is this intended to justify not using fairies or whatever other superstition? Because I doubt most people are ok with dealing with a demon (that is, something that has "torture all humans forever" as an explicit goal.)

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 November 2012 02:32:24PM 3 points [-]

It could imply God left some sort of "backdoor" in his creation, a lawful yet seemingly miraculous and near-impossible to detect part of creation. Matrix Lords, psychic powers etc.

It does seem rather incompatible with Christianity, though.

Comment author: DaFranker 09 November 2012 03:24:30PM *  1 point [-]

Law 34: God can do whatever the hell he wants. This law supersedes any precedent and subsequent laws.

If only they'd thought of that one.

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 November 2012 03:32:30PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: DaFranker 09 November 2012 03:34:27PM 0 points [-]

Oh, true. I guess I read your post too quickly and didn't process the information.

Comment author: MugaSofer 09 November 2012 07:18:01PM 0 points [-]

Hey, if God didn't think of it...