Do you believe in God?

Here perhaps is a better analogy then: language. Are you justified in saying: "Logically, speaking, the English language cannot exist because you always have the option of choosing your own meanings for its words"?

In other words, I don't think that just because you can choose to deny the authoritative meaning of a word, it follows that the word has no authoritative meaning, just as it doesn't follow that just because you can choose in general to deny authority, authority does not exist at all.


You're attacking a straw man. Nobody that I know of claims that (legitimate) authority entails that those subject to it do comply, just that they ought to comply.

But "What grounds authority?" is an interesting question, or would be, if we could get past the question of its existence in the first place!

Violence and power ground authority, that was already covered and I'm far from the first or only person in history to point that out. And no, its not a straw man, I said at the beginning not to confuse authority with expertise. When you are trying to say authority could be that someone should listen to someone, that's expertise, not that person claiming authority. Unless the "should" means "or else I'll hurt you."

I don't have a problem with the idea that someone could have gained the skill and knowledge necessary to craft a universe and that they even could have their own ideas of how best to raise other souls. But much like how you don't assume that a parent has the right to do whatever the hell they want to their kids, the same applies to everyone else. them having more power and knowledge does not in and of itself give them the right to do whatever they want and say its good or helpful. It reminds me of parents who send their kids to schools known to have massive social problems with the reasoning that it will "build character" without any thought of what sort of character it will build.

If I go full crazy for a moment and pull in all the past life stuff then the sheer number of people that I've had to deal with over time who unironically referred to themselves as gods has left me wit the opinion that there are no real Gods, only people who like to think they're Gods.

And in this life I got spirited away by someone who referred to themselves as a goddess and as far as I'm concerned actually had the power and skill to back it up. They had their own project universe thing that they admitted they were pretty new at where they were attempting to teach souls how to not be prejudicial through what amounted to reverse psychology. They are quite possibly the one and only person I've ever met who attempted to do that sort of thing whom I thought might actually genuinely be a good person who really cared about helping others learn. Not because of any claimed authority, but specifically the reverse. she owned up to her mistakes and attempted correct them in ways that kept her entirely out of it and which seemed as if it was "part of the plan" even though it wasn't. She wanted to specifically avoid the perception that she could just change reality on a whim whenever she felt like it. The fact that she was willing to go as far as she was really changed my view on the whole direct intervention thing, or at least it made me think that it's not bad 100% of the time.

Because honestly, every other person that I've met who attempted that, all the systems that get set up, all the protections, checks and balances, good intentions, all of it, always was just a thin veneer on top of the underlying reality that the people with power were forcing the "mortals" to be the way the gods wanted them to be, live how they wanted them to live, and obey when ordered. Even when the so called gods claimed and seemed to genuinely believe that they were really helping and that they were being all impartial and all that, all they were ever really doing is teaching others that might makes right and resistance is futile. Or they treat people like stocks to be traded, that's another one I've run into a few times.

And unlike governments here, that, at least currently, rely on manipulation and large networks of believers to do the bidding of the philosophical figureheads due to the general equity of power between individuals here. Advances in AI, weaponized drones, genetic engineering and cloning will change that more and more in the future though. Similarly, someone with enough magic doesn't need any of that. They can do it all themselves., so any chance of oversight, any chance of negotiation, any chance of remittance  is practically zero.

And quite frankly it still wasn't much different in her case, its not like the society I got dropped into was healthy, prosperous or happy. It was a dystopia. And it very much was her fault that it was that way. You could lay quite a lot of the suffering that many people were going through right at her feet, since it was the extra things that she'd baked into the physics of that 5 planet single solar system "universe" which facilitated it. And she could have just removed it at any time. But she took responsibility and found a pretty balanced solution that worked the best it could, which is far more than I can say for many others who didn't put in the thought or care. I still don't like intervention though.

That would depend on how you define "God" but yeah it does bring up the problem of evil.

Absolutely. That’s an old philosophical debate isn’t it? I suspect it’s more of a problem for those who believe in an interventionist god eg Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc.

Absolutely. That’s an old philosophical debate isn’t it? I suspect it’s more of a problem for those who believe in an interventionist god eg Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc.

Can you explain more about why you think that way please? I’m interested because I don’t think of God as ‘interventionist’ and don’t really have a problem with ‘evil’. I think God can be ‘all about love’ and be ‘everything’, which of course includes the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ on this earth, evil included. However I can see that evil’s probably necessary if ‘His Children’ are to grow. One example I try to imagine; a rich spoiled brat, having only known that lifestyle from birth, how can her/his parents, who were born in a poor slum, teach the child the valuable lessons about value that they learned? I don’t think they can, not really.

[Laird]

Hey Mediochre,

It seems that we have different ideas on authority and power. I see the two as distinct: that power doesn't ground authority, it backs up authority. You seem to see them as essentially identical, or at least that it is impossible to disentangle power from the nature of authority.

I also think that authority can be both legitimate or illegitimate. An example of a legitimate authority is a democratically-elected government (assuming the population in question prefers democracy). An example of an illegitimate authority is when a democratically-elected government is overthrown in a coup by the military (as has just happened in Myanmar) - such an authority may be "recognised" inasmuch as it holds effective control and there is no other authority with whom international entities can engage, but it is nevertheless illegitimate.

Finally, I think that even legitimate authorities might sometimes abuse their authority. You seem more inclined to a view that there is no legitimate use of authority, since you see it as synonymous with the exercise of power, which inevitably is a form of abuse - but I might be putting words into your mouth there.

Anyhow, I don't want to argue with you, and you're of course entitled to your views - I just wanted to express a different, perhaps more orthodox, perspective.

Your experiences of course are fascinating, and I do remember reading your story about being pulled into the goddess's world to help her out - it's a pity that that story now seems to be lost, because it was well worth the read.

Hey Mediochre,

It seems that we have different ideas on authority and power. I see the two as distinct: that power doesn't ground authority, it backs up authority. You seem to see them as essentially identical, or at least that it is impossible to disentangle power from the nature of authority.

I also think that authority can be both legitimate or illegitimate. An example of a legitimate authority is a democratically-elected government (assuming the population in question prefers democracy). An example of an illegitimate authority is when a democratically-elected government is overthrown in a coup by the military (as has just happened in Myanmar) - such an authority may be "recognised" inasmuch as it holds effective control and there is no other authority with whom international entities can engage, but it is nevertheless illegitimate.

Finally, I think that even legitimate authorities might sometimes abuse their authority. You seem more inclined to a view that there is no legitimate use of authority, since you see it as synonymous with the exercise of power, which inevitably is a form of abuse - but I might be putting words into your mouth there.

Anyhow, I don't want to argue with you, and you're of course entitled to your views - I just wanted to express a different, perhaps more orthodox, perspective.

Your experiences of course are fascinating, and I do remember reading your story about being pulled into the goddess's world to help her out - it's a pity that that story now seems to be lost, because it was well worth the read.

Sorry I shouldn't've been so harsh.

I don't see how its any different to say authority is backed by power. it still equates to the same thing, without the power then the authority isn't really there. Laws are just meaningless scribbles on a page until police enforce them. And naturally, since its still just meaningless scribbles that do nothing on their own, the enforcement will be selective and biased. Furthermore, I don't see how voting for someone somehow magically gives them the right to order you around and for you to be obligated to obey them. At absolute best all voting does is display that you are stating that you are willing to defer to a person on certain matters so long as you think they're doing a good job.

Going full crazy again, I have this view at this point because I've been someone with authority and reputation and stuff in the past. Whether I still have any of that now is unknown, but even if I somehow do I am going to probably get rid of it the moment I'm back home. The times where it becomes really, really obvious that its all  just power is when you have to fight someone who genuinely believes that they're doing the right thing and trying to help people. When you win, you know its not because your side's argument was better, its because you spent more time training than they did, or had more support backing you, or just got lucky, etc. It was all power. Those are easily the worst fights and I am incarnated here because of one of them.

People say power corrupts, but that's never been my experience. Power uninhibits. It allows you to be who you truly are on the inside, who you are when no ones watching. Some people are the types who love helping others and want nothing more than to see everyone be happy. Other people like to fantasise about torturing cats, and every variety in between. Not uncommonly with a lot of trauma mixed in. I'll never accept anyone as any sort of true "God" in the authoritarian sense because that's all they are, just people with their own likes and dislikes, they're not so special. But I don't mind respecting people who've mastered energy to such a degree that they know how to spin up a universe. Even if that is a pretty specific skillset that doesn't necessarilyy make them any better or more knowledgeable at anything else.

I do have a copy of my experience helping that goddess somewhere still if I remember correctly. I was planning on writing it up after I did Aheadjro, just to keep them in chronological order and to go into full detail as much as I can since the thing I originally wrote up was very short. But I guess I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just post a hollow version of it and maybe expand on it later since 2020 really messed up my mentality to get Aheadjro done for so long.

[Laird]

Sorry I shouldn't've been so harsh.

It's fine, man. We've been participating on this forum together for long enough that I think that we have a decent understanding of each other's dynamics, and have accepted them, otherwise we wouldn't bother to respond to one another. I don't take your harshness personally. I take it as an expression of the passion and commitment behind your views, to the extent that you are willing to so strongly assert and defend them. That's cool. I respect that.

without the power then the authority isn't really there

Hmm. Drawing from my previous post, I would say that this applies only to illegitimate authority, and not legitimate authority - but you don't seem to recognise any authority as legitimate, so we're kind of bogged down here.

Laws are just meaningless scribbles on a page until police enforce them

I disagree. I think most (or at least many; perhaps the average) citizens accept (or, if you prefer, believe) that there need to be norms or there'd be unmanageable chaos or even unchecked wickedness, and are therefore willing to adhere to those norms which the political authorities whom they elect codify into law. For that majority/many/average, it doesn't take enforcement (i.e., power) for them to respect and adhere to laws; they see adherence as a reasonable social and ethical duty.

I don't see how voting for someone somehow magically gives them the right to order you around and for you to be obligated to obey them. At absolute best all voting does is display that you are stating that you are willing to defer to a person on certain matters so long as you think they're doing a good job.

I think that again this gets at the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority. To add to my previous comments: an illegitimate authority is also one who (merely) "orders you around" at his/her pleasure and whim, and not for any good end. Such illegitimate authorities are, in any functioning democracy, shortly voted out of their positions. A legitimate authority respects the position they're in and exercises their authority wisely, and in turn is respected by those on whose behalf they are exercising authority.

I do have a copy of my experience helping that goddess somewhere still if I remember correctly.

Well, definitely post it if you can find it. It's a keeper.

Can you explain more about why you think that way please? I’m interested because I don’t think of God as ‘interventionist’ and don’t really have a problem with ‘evil’. I think God can be ‘all about love’ and be ‘everything’, which of course includes the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ on this earth, evil included. However I can see that evil’s probably necessary if ‘His Children’ are to grow. One example I try to imagine; a rich spoiled brat, having only known that lifestyle from birth, how can her/his parents, who were born in a poor slum, teach the child the valuable lessons about value that they learned? I don’t think they can, not really.

Hi Stan

I was thinking that the point raised about whether there was some “authority” and my understanding of the point that I thought mediochre was making that there can’t be as if there was, things in the world wouldn’t be as bad as they are (apologies to Medi if I have misrepresented the remarks).

By “interventionist” I meant the image of god portrayed by many organised religions which seems to me basically as “pray to me, be obedient and I might fix your problem”, or commit sins and “face the consequences” up to and including Hell of some sort.

If there is a god, I don’t see it as a personal being like a great Sky Daddy. Personally I don’t buy into the “evil is necessary” argument however I would say personal development can sometimes come from even the worst forms of adversity.

The common argument that if God existed, there wouldn't be so many problems in the world is effectively a strawman argument.  It assumes that God would behave in a certain way if he were to exist and that way is invariably according to the ethics of the person arguing.  In other words, s/he is creating a theoretical god in his/her own image and then destroying it because it won't do what s/he thinks it should do.  Why should any god behave the way you would want him to?  Perhaps he has better plans.  If you want to eliminate suffering, either you eliminate free will or you get some people on board who are willing to trust you and go your way and allow the others to die having first offered them the way out and been rejected.  Then you can make everything new.

The common argument that if God existed, there wouldn't be so many problems in the world is effectively a strawman argument.  It assumes that God would behave in a certain way if he were to exist and that way is invariably according to the ethics of the person arguing.  In other words, s/he is creating a theoretical god in his/her own image and then destroying it because it won't do what s/he thinks it should do.  Why should any god behave the way you would want him to?  Perhaps he has better plans.  If you want to eliminate suffering, either you eliminate free will or you get some people on board who are willing to trust you and go your way and allow the others to die having first offered them the way out and been rejected.  Then you can make everything new.

While its a confounding point, it is a logical one to me as well Brian.

Telling someone who has suffered greatly, through no seemingly result of any "wrong" action on their part, that God works in mysterious ways is a bitter pill (to say the least).  The proverbial "problem of evil" is typically countered by the theist as a necessary component for free will.  Yet, this same argument you've made applies there as well.

There's a certain human arrogance in presuming to judge his/her own creator.  Again, it does confound reason to see why an omnipotent/omniscient creator would include such terrible suffering in our reality, but Brian's point still stands: we may very well be missing the knowledge/insight into the inclusion of evil and suffering.

A pretty intractable quandary, at least to me.