Why would an omnipotent being ever get angry?

[Berzerker]

I have always enjoyed the Maya interpretation of creation. The dominant creatures on earth were not capable of reaching the potential the gods wanted from them. The gods gave their creations opportunities to advance, but once it became clear limits were hit they would wipe out most of their creation and start over again - with each new dominant creature being more perfect than the last.

thats a common feature in mythology, the Zulu have myths about their ancient ancestors fighting with the apemen - the Mayans also claim one of these earlier peoples were apelike. Mesopotamian myth describes the first peoples as "lulu" or primitive workers eventually replaced by more perfected peoples (Adapa). Even the Bible echoes this by describing Adam in animalistic terms only to become "enlightened".

 

[warpus]

Unless he had just recently transcended from a human, I doubt that an omnipotent being, or for that matter, any alien intelligence which had evolved in an environment much different from ours, would have anything recognizable as a human emotion. Our emotions are largely survival instincts adapted during pre civilization hunter gather days. 4,000 years of civilization is nowhere near enough to change those adaptions from hundreds of thousands of stone age years.

What makes you think that a being which evolved independently from life on Earth would not develop emotions similar to anger?

I get the "different environment" argument, but in the end it is evolution and anything that survives until sentience is going to have "survival instincts" built in to some degree.

So while I agree that this being' semotions are going to be different from ours, I would disagree that you can say with all certainty that something like anger wouldn't be a part of this being's emotional repertoire. It seems likely that something similar to such an emotion would be present. I mean, we can't say for sure - so I don't think it makes sense to make absolute statements like that.

 

[Borachio]

Are we sure that getting angry really has much survival value in the present day?

I'm not sure it ever did.

Getting worked up into a lather before fighting to the death with one's opponents might have been valued in the past, but I'm still not convinced that it's a particularly good trait to develop, evolutionarily speaking.

Or are we going to say that every emotion, because it exists, must have conferred some evolutionary benefit, otherwise it wouldn't exist? That would seem a bit of a tautological argument to me.

 

[Perfection]

Especially since they still work.

I dunno. I need a steady supply of stimulants to function successfully in cube farms.

 

[warpus]

According to my incredibly vague understanding of anger, it is correlated with things such as the "flight or fright" phenomenon, it helps animals exert or signal their dominance, it helps us deal with our boundaries, whether they're psychological or physical.

I don't know too much about it, but the evolution of emotions is very fascinating, and it seems that emotions have played a big part in our evolutionary journey. They also seem to have played a big part in the evolution of other animals - so it stands to reason that it's not so unreasonable to suggest that an alien from another planet might have gone through something similar - perhaps not the same exact feelings, but.. well, something.

That's why I don't think it makes sense to say "An alien would for sure not feel anything similar to anger". We just don't know.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are we sure that getting angry really has much survival value in the present day?

I'm not sure it ever did.

Getting worked up into a lather before fighting to the death with one's opponents might have been valued in the past, but I'm still not convinced that it's a particularly good trait to develop, evolutionarily speaking.

Or are we going to say that every emotion, because it exists, must have conferred some evolutionary benefit, otherwise it wouldn't exist? That would seem a bit of a tautological argument to me.

I find that allowing anger to run rampant to build up adrenaline in the bloodstream then using cognitive emotive techniques to produce a cool head is the most effective approach. But there is no question that anger goes directly to the adrenal glands and is therefore very useful.

 

[Borachio]

It depends on whether your ultimate goal is useful, doesn't it?

Sure, adrenaline is a very useful chemical at certain times, but fright can stimulate it even more than anger. Anger doesn't strike me as useful in itself at all. And I'm guessing I'd find it impossible to resolve into a "cool head" (quite the reverse of anger, imo) with "cognitive emotive techniques" (whatever they might be).

 

[Berzerker]

flight or fight, anger helps the latter - why does god have to fight or flee?

 

[warpus]

To be fair we're just talking about an omnipotent being, and not necessarily God (I thought).

 

[Berzerker]

true, reading up on religion I dont get the impression "God" is omnipotent - on the contrary, God seems plagued by some of our worst traits

 

[Akka]

If it is so obvious why does the vast majority of the population of the planet disagree with you?

Because the desire to believe is a much stronger force.

 

[warpus]

The majority of the planet can't agree on what sort of God exists, if any, to be fair, also.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because the desire to believe is a much stronger force.

Stronger than "obvious"?

Puzzling.

 

[Akka]

Stronger than "obvious"?

Puzzling.

Not really. Isn't self-deception one of the most common mental state in the world ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not really. Isn't self-deception one of the most common mental state in the world ?

Based on that, it seems that for something to be "obvious" it would have to be deceptive. Basically this just keeps coming back to the simple question, if you say something is "obvious" how would you explain that it is not be readily apparent to the majority of the population?

 

[Akka]

Based on that, it seems that for something to be "obvious" it would have to be deceptive. Basically this just keeps coming back to the simple question, if you say something is "obvious" how would you explain that it is not be readily apparent to the majority of the population?

And it keeps coming back to the same answer. People's desire to believe is stronger than evidence and reasoning. Hardly an unique occurence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And it keeps coming back to the same answer. People's desire to believe is stronger than evidence and reasoning. Hardly an unique occurence.

So you have evidence of the non existence of this god? That's the key to it being obvious to you? Please share.

 

[Akka]

So you have evidence of the non existence of this god? That's the key to it being obvious to you? Please share.

See the countless threads about "does God exist ?".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See the countless threads about "does God exist ?".

Why?

I can tell from here that evidence of non existence is an absurdity. I would have assumed that you can too.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sim games are actually not a bad metaphor for a deity. The question you need to answer is what is the goal? What do all the sim people work toward? Would it make sense to them if they could see it?

J

It's been a long time since I played any Sim games. I honestly don't care about the sim people. I love to make up absurd situations, like putting the mailbox in some crazy place and outside doors in the wall of the bathroom. To me it's more about designing weird environments than making sure these imaginary people have any kind of lives.

In the original Sim City game, the people could squawk all they wanted about roads; as far as I'm concerned, they can take public transit or walk.

When I was younger, my SimCity 2000 playtime mostly consisted of me taking pre-built cities that came with the deluxe edition and then starting an apocalypse by having every damn disaster happen at once, sometimes multiple times, leaving the entire city to be consumed by fire, hurricanes, earthquakes, rioters, UFOs, constant plane crashes... pretty much utterly destroyed. And then I'd start from the beginning again just to rein more destruction on the helpless masses.

I was one messed up elementary school kid.

Actually I still have my old SimCity 2000 CD. Maybe I should do it again sometime for stress relief.

It's a lot better to take it out on fake computer people than real people. In RL I would never do what I did to all those people whose cities I bulldozed and the sailors I allowed to drown, not to mention all the times I didn't bother rescuing the guy in a dinghy my ship kept finding out in the middle of the ocean.

I don't know, seems like you would at least be as good as the one we have now. I mean, just look at this world. It is clearly not being paid any attention by any deity out there.

Gosh, thanks. Actually, there are some changes I'd make if I could. But like anyone who wants to be sensible about this, I'd want to preview it first, to see if it works.

Not to mention, an omnipotent being has the power to ensure the milk was never left out in the first place. So it's his fault it was left out - if he didn't want it left out, he would've stopped it being left out. So why is he mad at you?

Why didn't the omnipotent being just arrange the laws of chemistry to ensure that the milk doesn't spoil in the first place?