Question:
Isn't God as 'computer programmer' a better analogy than 'painter' or 'composer'?
?
2014-11-24 08:47:12 UTC
We live in a natural universe that is self-regulating and self-replicating.God does not go around literally creating stars and planets 'by hand' so to speak. They are mindlessly created by the force of gravity. This is why water droplets, stars and planets tend to be round- because gravity is everywhere all around us.
God as literal 'creator' is a misconception.
If a force we call "God" exists then isn't God more like a computer programmer that lets' the universe run while updating itself as it expands?
God does not paint all the little details or compose all the little notes and chords.
Isn't God more like an observer who only intervenes in this particular universe in a subtle way?
We are imperfect natual beings because our imperfect universe is natural, not supernatural. Nature is imperfect. Nature is trial and error, hit or miss.
Shouldn't one search for God while standing on a solid foundation of reason and science rather than ancient mythology and strong but self-deceptive emotions?
Why dismiss the concept of God outright or go to the opposite extreme and believe that an ancient collection of man-made books is somehow the literal word of God?
Why 'pick a side' as some say?
It makes life more complicated but doesn't it also make life more interesting to ponder these questions?
Twelve answers:
?
2014-11-24 09:24:48 UTC
I'm an atheist, but yes, I like it better. God doesn't hand carve each and every snowflake on each an every planet in the universe. He set up an algorithm and let it go. Theists don't believe in self organizing systems yet they are all around us. All forms of crystal growth are examples. A free market economy is another. Theists, like communists, just can't imagine life without the safety blanket / illusion of a central planner.



My coworker uses evolution theory inspired genetic algorithms. He doesn't know what the outcome will be, but he relies on random mutation and natural selection to find the answer for him.



The only reason that fundies fight this concept tooth in nail, is because it conflicts with the opening book of a bronze age text written by desert dwelling goat herders. It's the stupidest reason I can imagine.



In fact, although I think it unlikely, I sometimes use the god as programmer in thought experiments: a variation on the "brain in a vat" thought experiment: essentially that we are all of us simulated brains in a digital bath, and god is a pimply faced computer wiz kid. He lies "outside time and space" in the sense that he lies outside OUR time and space. He can stop the simulation, go get a sandwich and then restart it again, and we're none the wiser. He can also grow up, have kids, die, and pass the simulation down to a colleague. Or maybe it was a group effort to begin with. These god things can stop the simulation or examine statistics or change variables here and there while it runs, but they are FAR from omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent or all good or all loving. They have limited brain capacities themselves and to pay detailed attention to EVERYTHING the simulation does obviates a need for the simulation in the first place. This simulation idea leaves the big bang and evolution intact as just normal self organizing systems which obey the fundamental rules of the simulation established by the god-programmers in the 1st place. The did NOT foresee the consequences of those rules anymore than a human programmer can precisely draw the outline of the Mandelbrot set w/o running the program to generate it.



Now again, I don't actually believe in these god-programmers because there's no evidence they exist, and we shouldn't take that scenario seriously until such evidence does exist.



I guess this is a form of deist thinking about gods, which of ALL the "god exists" hypotheses out there, is the ONLY one that has even a modicum of sense to it, IMO. I'm not saying my particular picture of it, but the idea of deism in general: that god or gods set it up, pushed the on-button, and walked away, taking zero special interest in evolved hominids on one little planet.
Samwise
2014-11-24 10:36:41 UTC
I do, in fact, think of God that way. Since much of my own creativity has been expressed in both professional and amateur computer programming, the analogy is apt.



But I think it carries a risk as well: If we start thinking of God's creations as software, with the fundamental limitations of software, we can be misled. And we can make the further mistake of expecting God's revelations to be in the form of code, which leads to a very bad misunderstanding of most of scripture.



A far better analogy for God's creativity is found in the writing, telling, or performing of stories. For studies of this analogy, I can recommend the short "The Mind of the Maker" by Dorothy Sayers, and the lecture "On Fairy-stories" by J.R.R. Tolkien, both of whom were also practitioners of the creative arts in question.
anonymous
2014-11-24 08:52:00 UTC
So, you're a deist. That's fine--you are certain the universe needs a creator and that creator is a god.



It still doesn't answer the question of why the universe needs a creator but your god does not.
?
2014-11-24 08:56:15 UTC
One would think if this were true that this 'god' would be a much better programmer than someone who designed Windows 8.
yogish p
2014-11-24 09:25:38 UTC
Only your last sentence has wisdom…'makes life more interesting to ponder these questions'

Reality is…you can ask questions but there is no answer hence the questioning is futile.
?
2014-11-24 08:55:29 UTC
What does it achieve? What does it change? Why invent a god concept to ponder? If you believe one or more gods intervenes in subtle ways ... what are these ways? Can you give examples? You can think of one god as artist, another as a philosopher and another as a tea pot ... and there is still nothing to suggest they have a role in our existence.
?
2014-11-24 09:14:22 UTC
A person who cares about the truth seeks truth, not gods. Truth is connected to facts and rational observation. If there is a god along that road somewhere, then great, we discovered a god. If there is a god somewhere other than on that road, then why call it a god?
Gregory
2014-11-24 08:55:17 UTC
no god is not like a computer programmer.

god is real not imagined as current science mythologies they claim are the truth.
Jay
2014-11-24 08:59:34 UTC
NO. All analogies are valid to the person making them.
Archer
2014-11-24 10:51:17 UTC
They all require a creator.
?
2014-11-24 08:59:44 UTC
How can any one analogy be remotely adequate?
?
2014-11-24 08:51:08 UTC
404: Not found


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...