Tyson on God..

[Magical Realist]

Can't argue with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0nXG02tpDw

(oops..wrong forum)

[C C]

I don't know why people feel that a god would be "good" from the ethical POV of a particular human ideological or social conduct system. Such a being would have its own standards and instead be conforming to those -- not to the changing and varying forms of governance that inferior entities have worked out for themselves. 

For Leibniz, the philosopher's God would be more like an architect or engineer who was interested in creating a world that was internally consistent and self-supporting, that hung together well while also being rich with the most possibilities of what can exist. Time would be necessary because some things would not be logically or causally compatibile with other things unless they were delegated to different stages or eras of development.

When the tech industry designs a video game, it doesn't care a whit about what happens to the characters in that virtual environment, only the setup for interesting drama and competition. The inhabitants are wholly superficial props, they don't experience images, private feelings or manifestations like pain.

And if one were to go by Keith Frankish and other supporters of the "illusion theory of consciousness", we don't actually possess such internal states, either. Evolution has honed us to universally pretend that there's something magical going on that makes us special. That our processing of sensory information and our thoughts have content presented in them, rather than such just being more matter interactions taking place in the dark. All just inherent programming or built-in make-believe that we carry out both personally and publicly.

While I unavoidably do believe that I do have experiences (like there being more to "pain" than just the outward activity of moaning and nursing a sprained ankle), the idea that we're essentially philosophical zombies is the view that should be most compatible with strict materialism, scientism, the mediocrity principle, etc (ie., no "woo" like phenomenal consciousness allowed). Wherein there's nothing special or mysterious about us. IOW, it's the latter position that Tyson should actually be entertaining, which would consequently eliminate specious moral evaluation of the universe, God, etc on the basis of wholly invented products that have fallen out of self-interested or egotistical human imagination (which is irrelevent compared to the rest of the cosmos or the big picture). 

Consistency with the other treasure chest of beliefs, IOW, held by proud, card-carrying members of those thought orientations.

[Syne]

The problem of evil and natural evil are both a necessity for freewill. You cannot have actual agency in a world that can have capricious consequences, as the consequences would not causally relate to the actions. The greater good is agency over determinism.

[Magical Realist]

How does allowing things like earthquakes, hurricanes, plagues, and floods allow free choice? I don't know anyone who chooses those things.

[Syne]

You cannot have freewill without a consistent cause and effect. Otherwise, your causes would not consistently lead to predictable effects. And a world of cause and effect necessitates that same causality for all of nature. Just like some people will have the freedom to create evil effects, so does nature have the freedom to do things we may not like.

[Magical Realist]

You cannot have freewill without a consistent cause and effect. Otherwise, your causes would not consistently lead to predictable effects

People prevent things from causing other things all the time. It's called free agency. There's nothing about freewill that entails having millions killed by some natural disasters. Nobody's choice is being respected and a complete eradication of anyone's choice. It's a sure indication that there is no loving God behind everything.

[Syne]

You cannot have freewill without a consistent cause and effect. Otherwise, your causes would not consistently lead to predictable effects

People prevent things from causing other things all the time. It's called free agency. There's nothing about freewill that entails having millions killed by some natural disasters. Nobody's choice is being respected. It's a sure indication that there is no loving God behind everything.

Causing something that prevents the expected effect of a previous cause is still just causality. Freewill isn't some magical choice that must be respected. It only exists in a world of causality, where bad things can and do happen. The good of agency outweighs the ill of bad circumstances.

[Magical Realist]

It only exists in a world of causality, where bad things can and do happen.

In other words in a world where there is no God making things happen or keeping them from happening. A world where no God exists at all.

[Syne]

It only exists in a world of causality, where bad things can and do happen.

In other words in a world where there is no God making things happen or keeping them from happening. A world where no God exists at all.

Why would God work against the freewill he granted?
No, I don't believe in outright divine miracles/intervention. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't work through other people... and even the individual's own beliefs (mind over body).

But you believe what you want. I'm just laying out the logic that freewill requires causation.

[Magical Realist]

No, I don't believe in outright divine miracles/intervention.

So we wind up with exactly what Tyson was saying--a God too weak to affect or cause anything in the world and so essentially impotent. You might as well believe in nothing.