Metanet Forums

(Note: The thoughts portrayed below are to be considered "in-progress" and are subject to change. Also, don't expect any of this to be entirely cohesive, partly because I just had toe surgery and the vicodin is making me dizzy and tired.)

So lately I’ve been trying to figure out this God character. All my life I have been told that “God moves in mysterious ways,” but somehow I just don’t buy it. It would seem that the Christian God is portrayed as an all-loving, all-knowing and ever-lasting being, but it would also seem that, upon inspection to a certain degree, these factors fly in the face of one another. I’m no scholar, so I think I’m going to lay this out in bullet-point/numbered list fashion and work my way from there.

1. God cannot be both omniscient and omnibenevolent. Possibly not even either,

a. Omnibenevolence is pretty much ruled out seeing how God killed, oh, about 2,391,421 people in the Bible. He is also described as being a jealous God, which doesn’t seem to be a beneficial emotion, nor does it make any sense. I can see why he wouldn’t want people to worship idols, but why should He be jealous? He knows they aren’t real. I think Jesus is omnibenevolent, but there could be complications with the “three-in-one” theory here.

b. To me, omniscience seems separate from emotion. Emotion represents our uncertain nature of the world in which we live. Fear, anxiety, curiosity, and countless other feelings all stem from the fact that we can’t see into the future. Why should I be afraid of going on a cruise if I can look into the future and know that the boat won’t be sinking on my trip? Fear is no longer an issue, and neither is a broad range of emotions. Hence if you are all-knowing there isn’t any reason to be mad or jealous.

2. Free will is a very twisted concept. What I’m going from is Tsukatu’s dolly theory*.

a. If we don’t have free will, with God shaping exactly how each person is, this is a little terrifying. Yes, God would technically be the invisible hand pushing the tea cup over and then punishing the doll for it.

b. Having what the Bible call’s Free Will isn’t exactly something to be desired though. How I see it, the little girl is having a tea party. She tells the dollies that they can either choose the red cups or the blue cups, and it’s entirely their decision. However the girl doesn’t like it when they choose the blue cups because blue is a boy’s color. One dolly chooses a blue cup and the girl promptly sets her on fire. I don’t think you could call that free will. Thoughts on this are continued a couple sections down.

c. Having free will means that the consequences we endure in the afterlife are a direct result of what we do while we are alive, which is terrifying if you do accidentally do something wrong without realizing it, simply because you didn’t know any better. What happened to all of the people native to South America before missionaries wandered over and shoved their doctrine down the local populations throats? There seems to be no way they could have known about God, so they don’t believe in him. Did they go to Hell? If God gave them a free pass doesn’t that seem kind of cheap for the rest of us?

3. Why is homosexuality against His will?

a. Being gay does not harm anyone. I understand certain things being against God’s will, such as murder or rape, because those things are harmful to others. However, as it is, God seems to have just made being gay wrong because he felt like it. He could have very well made anything the norm, but he specifically wanted a man and a woman to be together, and no one really knows why. This leads me to my concluding point:

4. Is this all just a game to Him?

a. Humanity couldn’t have been created for the sole purpose of worshiping Him, because that would be vain and God doesn’t need to impress anyone, nor does he need to feel good about Himself. We also couldn’t have been made with free will in mind. Giving humanity free will is fruitless because either a) He already knows what’s going to happen and what point is there in free will if this is the case? or b) He wants to see what would happen if He created something out of his control and independent of His wishes, but that would rule out being omniscient, now wouldn’t it?

b. God creates humanity and after all is said and done you have billions of people in hell and billions of people in heaven. Now what? Start over again? Why create hell if you don’t want people going there anyway? “Oh, but it’s Satan who brings people to hell!” If that’s the case why didn’t God just destroy Lucifer from the start, or not even create him in the first place? It’s not like God didn’t know what was going to happen.

All of these points are pretty vague and not very well-thought out because this was more of a top-of-my-head moment, but the point here is to see what others think and get to the bottom of things. Letting out your worldview, listening to criticism, and revising it accordingly is the core to critical thinking, is it not? I just want to know what others have to say.

* There's a little girl who likes to play with her dollies. Her dollies don't actually have any personality of their own, obviously, so she decides exactly what each dolly is like. Over a table of imagined tea and plastic china, she declares that it would be a very naughty thing for one of the dollies to spill the tea. She then reaches over, grabs the hand of one of the dollies, and knocks over one of the cups with the dolly's hand, because she has decided that that's what that particular dolly will be like, and that that's what that particular dolly will do because of the way she has decided the dolly will be. She then proceeds to punish the dolly for something for which she deserves the blame for entirely. And if we're talking about a Christian God (who punishes people with Hell), the punishment involves cutting open the dolly with a pair of scissors, gleefully tearing out the stuffing, and methodically coloring the exposed stuffing with a red marker.

If God is all knowing, then God knows the outcome of this test of his already. Therefore Free Will is a fallacy as our paths are already set, and God is a sadistic creature for putting us through his entirely redundant test.

So there are two options here:

A: God doesn't exist.
B: God exists and is using us as playthings to amuse himself.

I've not heard one single valid argument from anyone in my entire 29 years that gives a third option.

To throw an argument at your comment: Who said all-knowing means you know what the future holds?

I recently read an article that theorized that time does not just flow in one direction, it also flows backwards. That is, the future affects the present. They then went on and created an experiment that actually showed it. (The process worked with some form of quantum mechanics that involved observing states at either 2 or 3 points in time; through some ridiculous math, they showed that if the future affected the present, then the second time they observe the state would be different if the state was to be observed a third time or not, and crazily enough, that is exactly the result they got).

This would imply no free will would it not? If the future affects the present, then wouldn't the future already be set?

Apparently not. The experiment went on to cases that then showed that if they randomly decided to either observe a third time or not observe (whatever was inverse of what the trial was intended), the 2nd observation ended up somewhere in between.

That was a horrible explanation because it is a 5 page article condensed to a couple of paragraphs, but hopefully you get the gist.

smartalco wrote:To throw an argument at your comment: Who said all-knowing means you know what the future holds?

I recently read an article that theorized that time does not just flow in one direction, it also flows backwards. That is, the future affects the present. They then went on and created an experiment that actually showed it. (The process worked with some form of quantum mechanics that involved observing states at either 2 or 3 points in time; through some ridiculous math, they showed that if the future affected the present, then the second time they observe the state would be different if the state was to be observed a third time or not, and crazily enough, that is exactly the result they got).

This would imply no free will would it not? If the future affects the present, then wouldn't the future already be set?

Apparently not. The experiment went on to cases that then showed that if they randomly decided to either observe a third time or not observe (whatever was inverse of what the trial was intended), the 2nd observation ended up somewhere in between.

That was a horrible explanation because it is a 5 page article condensed to a couple of paragraphs, but hopefully you get the gist.

Who says a god would subscribe to Human concepts of time?

Gods are made out to know what the future holds by their devout.

capt_weasle wrote:[1.a.] Omnibenevolence is pretty much ruled out seeing how God killed, oh, about 2,391,421 people in the Bible.

The act of killing doesn't necessarily conflict with benevolence. Any generally benevolent person would remain a perfectly moral person if he were to take a life to prevent something disastrous and horrible (assuming, of course, that the only alternative is to let the disastrous thing happen; obviously, the issue is very circumstantial, but the only point I'm trying to make is that it's possible for killing to be moral). Another moral, and in fact more evidently benevolent, way of killing someone is euthenasia.
The circumstance to notice here is that the moral killer has a heightened understanding of the situation and demonstrates a keen sense of judgment. Could there be a more justified killer than an omniscient God? He, after all, knows all the circumstances involved in His decisions to reclaim each and every one of those people (and incidentally, you don't, so you're really in no place to judge His actions), so who are we to say that any particular killing of His is unjustified? God knows better, by definition. It could easily have been the case, even in His mass murders, that any of His victims would have lived to corrupt His cause later in their lives, or play a part in keeping an innocent person from His saving grace.

capt_weasle wrote:He is also described as being a jealous God, which doesn’t seem to be a beneficial emotion, nor does it make any sense.

I've noticed that a number of people tend to think of God as some kind of reality machine, perfectly but coldly enforcing some impeccably defined set of laws and never throwing any of His personality into the mix. Why can't God have moods, a sense of humor, or His own wants? Who are we to say what pleases Him, after all, aside from that which He's explicitly stated? And why can't an omniscient God be jealous even while He knows that it's a poor trait for mankind to have? God made us in His image, and we all give in to ideas and habits we know are bad and will teach our children to avoid, so where is it that you're seeing an inconsistency? On the contrary, making God more personable and relatable makes Him that much more believable.

capt_weasle wrote:I can see why he wouldn’t want people to worship idols, but why should He be jealous? He knows they aren’t real.

I imagine it's the same sort of jealousy that a wife in a happily married couple would have if she walked in on her husband while he was looking at porn. Even though there is zero threat to her from the nameless bimbo on the screen, it is totally justifiable that the wife will be bitter and jealous. She might even feel silly being so jealous, but feel jealous all the same.

capt_weasle wrote:b. To me, omniscience seems separate from emotion. Emotion represents our uncertain nature of the world in which we live. Fear, anxiety, curiosity, and countless other feelings all stem from the fact that we can’t see into the future. Why should I be afraid of going on a cruise if I can look into the future and know that the boat won’t be sinking on my trip? Fear is no longer an issue, and neither is a broad range of emotions. Hence if you are all-knowing there isn’t any reason to be mad or jealous.

I agree that knowledge is separate from emotion, but am confused as to why you think this means they are mutually exclusive. I know that my older relatives will probably all die within my lifetime, but I will still grieve when they do. I can become an expert psychologist and be able to explain exactly what I will think and how I will handle the loss, but that won't change the emotional toll it will take on me.

capt_weasle wrote:2. Free will is a very twisted concept.

Even given that God has certain knowledge of every event that might possibly happen, we still have very little context to understand why God decided to make us. Why, after all, do people watch their favorite movies more than once even though they know exactly what will happen or have memorized the dialogue?
What is deterministic, of course, is reality, but our souls happen to exist apart from that. Could it not be that the illusion of free will is enough for the task of shaping us before our ascension to Heaven? Maybe there are some of us whom God intends to use for some purpose completely outside of what we now know is real, and this reality serves to put us in the right mindset for the work we will do.
Furthermore, our understanding of time, events, and knowledge, are all highly constrained by our perspectives, and it could very well be the case that these things don't exist or are changed in the afterlife, or there is some extenuating circumstance there that makes God's knowledge of our actions a moot point.

capt_weasle wrote:What I’m going from is Tsukatu’s dolly theory.

Tsukatu is an asshole. Also, I saw him eat a kitten once.

capt_weasle wrote:a. If we don’t have free will, with God shaping exactly how each person is, this is a little terrifying. Yes, God would technically be the invisible hand pushing the tea cup over and then punishing the doll for it.

Dante's Inferno was political slander, not a factual report. All we know of Hell is that it is separate from God, and that's all He's revealed to us. It is silly to think that an omniscient, omnipotent God only has plans for us in our mortal lifetimes, so is it so much of a stretch to believe His sorting of our eternal souls for different purposes is probably not all that senseless?

capt_weasle wrote:b. Having what the Bible call’s Free Will isn’t exactly something to be desired though. How I see it, the little girl is having a tea party. She tells the dollies that they can either choose the red cups or the blue cups, and it’s entirely their decision. However the girl doesn’t like it when they choose the blue cups because blue is a boy’s color. One dolly chooses a blue cup and the girl promptly sets her on fire. I don’t think you could call that free will. Thoughts on this are continued a couple sections down.

In Christian doctrine, the concept of Free Will is tied heavily with the concept of temptation. You could imagine testing your child this way: offer him the choice between chocolate and a nutritionally balanced meal for dinner. Would it be unjustified for you to be disappointed and discipline the child for choosing chocolate? No, of course not. You'd probably wish that you had raised him better, and God probably feels the same way about you not heeding His advice on how to live your life happily.

capt_weasle wrote:c. Having free will means that the consequences we endure in the afterlife are a direct result of what we do while we are alive, which is terrifying if you do accidentally do something wrong without realizing it, simply because you didn’t know any better.

This is another view some people have of God, wherein He's some blind judge who follows only the literal interpretation of the law. God is wise beyond comprehension, and surely judges according to intent. So long as you mean well, I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

capt_weasle wrote:What happened to all of the people native to South America before missionaries wandered over and shoved their doctrine down the local populations throats? There seems to be no way they could have known about God, so they don’t believe in him. Did they go to Hell? If God gave them a free pass doesn’t that seem kind of cheap for the rest of us?

While you didn't make it its own point that His Word isn't as well spread as it seems He ought to desire, I think it could simply be one of many ever-present tests He has designed for us. That is, for those of us whom He wants to see motivated by a good cause, He would obviously be interested in seeing how we handle the task of spreading the Good Word to those who haven't heard it, and the passion we have for doing so. If everyone knew about God, there would be no way to do this.
But more to the point you're making: Because we are designed in His image, we are instilled with some infinitesimal fragment of His benevolence. Call it a conscience, call it instinctive human solidarity, or whatever else, but the fact remains that humans appear to have this desire to be good people across cultural borders. This is why heathens can, seemingly inexplicably, actually be good people at times; the Light of the Lord may be dimmer within them, but it's always there (and waiting for you to cultivate it!).
Have you never found it strange that seemingly every religion has temperance and self-sacrifice at the heart of its moral teachings? Well you shouldn't! Because even these man-made, phony-baloney religions are motivated by that same part of God within us. Morally good humans, from any culture, must work hard, must resist temptation, and must sacrifice their own wants for the good of others. Even though they do not know the source of these good intentions as we do, they must work hard to be good, just as we must, and so I don't see at all how it's a "free pass" on their end.

capt_weasle wrote:3. Why is homosexuality against His will?

Why is polygamy forbidden? Why are we asked to pray, even though God is always able to know our thoughts? You can ask "why" to any number of arbitrary rules, and the answer is all the same: because God desires that we do it. There are two parts to being good, and those are refraining from doing evil and actively doing good. Following guidelines fulfills that first part, and obeying orders, even ones He knows impose an inconvenience upon us, fulfills that second part. It's curious that so many people latch onto the homosexuality issue when, in the right light, any of His commandments may seem pointless and arbitrary.
Let me take this from a different perspective, one that I hope can demonstrate why this accusation against God is, itself, arbitrary and inconsistent. When we think of a marriage, we think of certain characteristics it must have. One is that it is between two people, not between three or more. Another is that both people getting married must consent to the marriage, that both desire it. Yet another is that both must be adults; neither can be children. God says it must be between one man and one woman. Why do you attack this arbitrary requirement, and not any of these others? Why are you against children being sexually active, I could ask. It's not that you hate children, but that you think it's wrong for children to have sex. In the same way, it's not that God hates homosexuals, but that it's wrong to carry out homosexual actions. Hate the sinner, not the sin, as they say.

capt_weasle wrote:a. Being gay does not harm anyone. I understand certain things being against God’s will, such as murder or rape, because those things are harmful to others. However, as it is, God seems to have just made being gay wrong because he felt like it. He could have very well made anything the norm, but he specifically wanted a man and a woman to be together, and no one really knows why.

Neither does failing to pray. Never reaching out to God won't do you direct harm in your lifetime (although obviously you'd have a terrible time trying to cope without feeling His love and supportive presence, which I shudder at the thought of going a single day without), but it remains that you're not following His instructions. And that, after all, is the whole point.
Giving in to homosexual temptations is in every way like being a disobedient child who flaunts his disobedience in his parents' face. How does it continue to escape people's notice that this is the whole point of temptation? Some temptations are stronger than others, and the temptations you may face in your day are probably a very different set from those that I face in my day. Countless people have worked past their homosexuality problem with the help of Christ, so why are you siding with all of these whiners? If I know that God asked me not to kill people but I just thought, gosh-golly-darn, that I feel like killing people anyway, I would be totally unjustified in condemning God for making something I want to do against the rules. How is homosexuality any different?

capt_weasle wrote:and no one really knows why.

Humility, man. Humility. He's got a massive brain, and yours is teensy. If you don't understand why He wants something, don't fucking worry about it. He knows much better than you, and He has your best interests at heart. What more could you ask for? And how could you insult Him by demanding answers you probably couldn't understand?
But I'm sure He'll be more than happy to explain it all to you when you're at His side after you've passed on. For now, just focus on living a good life, and you don't have to worry about the nitty-gritty details, thanks to Jesus.

capt_weasle wrote:4. Is this all just a game to Him?

No offense, but you're starting to sound like someone in a failing relationship. God loves you very much, capt_weasle. Some day you'll know that, and if you're receptive to it and give Him a chance, you'll feel it even long before that.

capt_weasle wrote:God creates humanity and after all is said and done you have billions of people in hell and billions of people in heaven. Now what? Start over again? Why create hell if you don’t want people going there anyway? “Oh, but it’s Satan who brings people to hell!” If that’s the case why didn’t God just destroy Lucifer from the start, or not even create him in the first place? It’s not like God didn’t know what was going to happen.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but I found this a little funny. Since you don't have any knowledge of Heaven or Hell, this just seems to me to be a very silly issue to raise. Demanding the next step of the whole Heaven/Hell process is like demanding of a change-sorting machine what it's going to do with all of its change, now that its work is done. "Whatcha gonna do now, change machine? Huh? Sort 'em again? It's all done, and it don't mean a thing to ya, does it, change machine? So whatcha gonna do now, huh? You ain't gonna do shit, change machine. That's what. You ain't gonna do shit." Just as the person who needs to sort his change probably has or will make a purpose for his sorted change, so too does God have or will God make a purpose after His process of sorting people into Heaven or Hell is finished. Just don't worry about it.

I'll pray for you.


(If for some crazy reason it needs to be said, I obviously am not convinced by a single fucking word of what I just wrote.)

a happy song wrote:If God is all knowing, then God knows the outcome of this test of his already. Therefore Free Will is a fallacy as our paths are already set, and God is a sadistic creature for putting us through his entirely redundant test.

So there are two options here:

A: God doesn't exist.
B: God exists and is using us as playthings to amuse himself.

I've not heard one single valid argument from anyone in my entire 29 years that gives a third option.

I believe Tsukatu covered this at length, but I believe the third option is "God is a mysterious motherfucker, and who the fuck are you to say that he isn't benevolent? He's bigger, smarter, and invented human morality."

Besides which, morality has developed constantly over the last few thousand years based on humanity's need for community and society, so I do not like it when people go, "Well, God did this, and I know that is wrong." because we don't have a definitive moral guide. Morality is ever growing way of looking at life. God is not picked apart by this.

The way I've always seen it, it's rather illogical to try and disprove God by the assumption that he exists and that the Bible is true, because the contradictions and historical inaccuracies are so glaring. There are tons of completely reasonable scientific ways of disproving the existence of God, so why are we stuck with paradoxical hypotheticals?

The contradictory statements you pulled from the Bible can be explained by the fact that the books were written by different people, and in no way reflect God's "will", if he has one. Additionally, the Old and New Testaments disagree with each other quite a lot, probably because they were written at different time periods. So using the Bible as a source in a debate about religion is inherently incorrect.

I didn't read all of what you wrote, btw. If you addressed this anywhere, apologies in advance.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I believe Tsukatu covered this at length, but I believe the third option is "God is a mysterious motherfucker, and who the fuck are you to say that he isn't benevolent? He's bigger, smarter, and invented human morality."

Yes, but the reasoning I made disproves this. But then my reasoning is from a limited human perspective, so perhaps everything will become clear once I transcend my physic...

Oh, bullshit, the dude is obviously a psychopath.

Calling God's behaviour 'good' in any way is twisting the meaning of that word beyond all recognition. God can have his own morality and do whatever the fuck he wants, but if his human followers say and think he's perfectly good, well, they're perfectly wrong.

My current favourite disproofoid for the Christian God is the matter of Hell. There is nothing that someone could do on Earth, no matter how vile their behaviour, that would make them deserving of eternal damnation. At some point, the infinite suffering inflicted upon them would outweigh their Earth-crimes and become disproportionate and thoroughly un-loving.

bok_choy wrote:My current favourite disproofoid for the Christian God is the matter of Hell. There is nothing that someone could do on Earth, no matter how vile their behaviour, that would make them deserving of eternal damnation. At some point, the infinite suffering inflicted upon them would outweigh their Earth-crimes and become disproportionate and thoroughly un-loving.

Maybe it's something that seems so disfavorable to you now, knowing only what you know now.
Or maybe God is more interested to see how you deal with the threat of eternal punishment, even if it isn't eternal, or indeed not a punishment at all.
You don't know. But God does, and He has your best interests at heart. After all, if He didn't care for you, then why would you be able to be as happy as you've been, in those stretches of time that you were happy? And why are Christians so much smarter, more tolerant, and happier than anyone else?

I think it's really pitiful that human beings think that they can understand everything about universe, and god logic.

Apparantly we're not created to understand everything going on around us.

Tunco wrote:I think it's really pitiful that human beings think that they can understand everything about universe, and god logic.

I think it's pitiful that this has become common sense. Do you realize that the accusation that our knowledge can't surpass some arbitrary limit, or that we are incapable of comprehending something, is itself a very presumptuous and arrogant thing to say? I mean, how the fuck could you possibly know where our limits are until we reach them?
"Scholars" have no doubt been saying for millennia that because humans are bound by reality and are confined to rationality (which is somehow a confinement in their eyes rather than a tool we put to pants-shittingly outstanding use), and these people would probably be blown away that today we're smashing subatomic particles together and simulating the beginning of the universe.
Stop telling us what we can't do, because you don't know where our limits are any better than we do. But what we do know is that we haven't reached those limits yet, if they exist at all, and that we're nowhere close.

Tsukatu wrote:

Tunco wrote:I think it's really pitiful that human beings think that they can understand everything about universe, and god logic.

I think it's pitiful that this has become common sense. Do you realize that the accusation that our knowledge can't surpass some arbitrary limit, or that we are incapable of comprehending something, is itself a very presumptuous and arrogant thing to say? I mean, how the fuck could you possibly know where our limits are until we reach them?
"Scholars" have no doubt been saying for millennia that because humans are bound by reality and are confined to rationality (which is somehow a confinement in their eyes rather than a tool we put to pants-shittingly outstanding use), and these people would probably be blown away that today we're smashing subatomic particles together and simulating the beginning of the universe.
Stop telling us what we can't do, because you don't know where our limits are any better than we do. But what we do know is that we haven't reached those limits yet, if they exist at all, and that we're nowhere close.

Yeah, you pretty much destroyed the common sense.

Tunco wrote: Yeah, you pretty much destroyed the common sense.

Because I think the larger point here, is that faith supercedes common sense. That faith makes paradoxes like this irrelevant, perhaps even reinforcing.

I think Slappy kind of said this, but there's one major flaw with capt_weasel's first post and the subsequent ones attempting to out-logic God.

God, or belief in such, isn't based on logic. It's based on faith, and so is impervious to common sense. The Bible never offers scientific explanations for anything, and that's because there are none. If you try to scientifically disseminate something that has nothing to do with science, you'll always end up with nothing.

Honestly? I think God's just Dr. Manhattan.

Tsukatu wrote:Demanding the next step of the whole Heaven/Hell process is like demanding of a change-sorting machine what it's going to do with all of its change, now that its work is done. "Whatcha gonna do now, change machine? Huh? Sort 'em again? It's all done, and it don't mean a thing to ya, does it, change machine? So whatcha gonna do now, huh? You ain't gonna do shit, change machine. That's what. You ain't gonna do shit."

Funniest damn thing I've read this month.

SlappyMcGee wrote:There are tons of completely reasonable scientific ways of disproving the existence of God, ...

Such as?

I mean, my apologies if this has been discussed at length on these forums already, but non-existence is not something that can be proved by non-omniscient beings. (And even that is only true if we assume the universe is infinitely rule-abiding. ...or rather, that the universe infinitely abides by the rules as we understand them).

Mute Monk wrote:God, or belief in such, isn't based on logic. It's based on faith, and so is impervious to common sense.

Heh, read Tsukatu's first post again and tell me there's no logic there. You're right in that the actual belief in that scenario (Christian god) is not founded in logic, but you would do well to note that that doesn't mean the scenario itself is illogical.

a happy song wrote:If God is all knowing, then God knows the outcome of this test of his already. Therefore Free Will is a fallacy as our paths are already set, and God is a sadistic creature for putting us through his entirely redundant test.

So there are two options here:

A: God doesn't exist.
B: God exists and is using us as playthings to amuse himself.

I've not heard one single valid argument from anyone in my entire 29 years that gives a third option.

Unfortunately, the two things I underlined are what kill your argument. We have no knowledge of God's amusement or status as a sadist, and cannot know. As such, your argument needs refinement. It's kinda like me saying "That tree exists AND IT SPEAKS TO ME AND WANTS ME TO BURN THINGS FIRE FIRE FIRE."

Mute Monk wrote:I think Slappy kind of said this, but there's one major flaw with capt_weasel's first post and the subsequent ones attempting to out-logic God.

God, or belief in such, isn't based on logic. It's based on faith, and so is impervious to common sense. The Bible never offers scientific explanations for anything, and that's because there are none. If you try to scientifically disseminate something that has nothing to do with science, you'll always end up with nothing.

I didn't try to disprove him. I said he either doesn't exist, or does but he's sadistic.

All evidence points to this, it's base logic mixed with the follower's own claims about their deity.

Smörgåsbord wrote:

a happy song wrote:If God is all knowing, then God knows the outcome of this test of his already. Therefore Free Will is a fallacy as our paths are already set, and God is a sadistic creature for putting us through his entirely redundant test.

So there are two options here:

A: God doesn't exist.
B: God exists and is using us as playthings to amuse himself.

I've not heard one single valid argument from anyone in my entire 29 years that gives a third option.

Unfortunately, the two things I underlined are what kill your argument. We have no knowledge of God's amusement or status as a sadist, and cannot know. As such, your argument needs refinement. It's kinda like me saying "That tree exists AND IT SPEAKS TO ME AND WANTS ME TO BURN THINGS FIRE FIRE FIRE."

Well, ok, maybe not certainly sadistic, but certainly getting a kick from it in some way.

If God knows the outcome of everything and is entirely transcendent (and this /is/ what most Christians claim), then there is ZERO reason for making us perform in this lifetime bar some kind of twisted amusement. If the outcome is already known, then the test is redundant, free-will is a fallacy, and we should all be placed in our respective 'afterlife' from birth.

Why the hell else would he put us through it?

The ONLY way to contest this would be to say our limited human imaginations couldn't grasp some kind of superior transcendental logic, which is as much a cop-out as saying "God works in mysterious ways".

SlappyMcGee wrote:Because I think the larger point here, is that faith supercedes common sense. That faith makes paradoxes like this irrelevant, perhaps even reinforcing.

Indeed. Thomas Aquinas was an advocate of the notion that faith perfects reason. That is to say, reason can only take us so far, and the final step in finding truth is through faith. And in the same vein as my earlier posts in this thread, in no way do I believe this to be a complete crock of shit or anything. Not in the slightest. No sirree bob.

@Avarin: I should have said the Christian Bible, and not God. Heat of the moment.

@Tsukatu: I am not sure the level of irony you are running on right now, but needless to say, my argument for faith replacing common sense was done from a distance, in that I don't actually believe that having blind faith is a good substitute for logic, just that there is no way to convince somebody of the paradoxes in the bible because faith makes them immune to my common sense. In case you misinterpreted me and do not agree. I don't know.

a happy song wrote:Well, ok, maybe not certainly sadistic, but certainly getting a kick from it in some way.

If God knows the outcome of everything and is entirely transcendent (and this /is/ what most Christians claim), then there is ZERO reason for making us perform in this lifetime bar some kind of twisted amusement. If the outcome is already known, then the test is redundant, free-will is a fallacy, and we should all be placed in our respective 'afterlife' from birth.

Why the hell else would he put us through it?

The ONLY way to contest this would be to say our limited human imaginations couldn't grasp some kind of superior transcendental logic, which is as much a cop-out as saying "God works in mysterious ways".

This actually sums up my thoughts pretty well.

Another thing I've just been thinking about is the whole "cursed" aspect of humanity. Why would God punish the rest of all life for the sins of Adam and Eve? Say I have a kid who starts smoking after I deliberately told him not to. I get angry, kick him out of the house, and proceed to tell him that for the rest of eternity (I'm immortal for some reason) I will beat him and his kids ruthlessly every day of the week. Forever. Because I told my son not to smoke and he did. How does that make sense? Why not just punish Adam and Eve and start with a clean slate for their children?

The "word" of God would most likely have changed were it not for symbolic representation of language. That a single book has been carried down throughout the last 6,000 years is pretty awesome but it only stands to show that the written word is powerful and can be much more difficult to change than spoken words. The Odyssey and the Iliad, a series of stories that were originally sung and spoken, were probably a bit different only a couple generations before Homer wrote them down. I would imagine the stories of the Bible were spoken-word stories passed down through generation upon generation (and thus were probably subject to a lot of change) before they were finally written down.

smartalco i would love to read that article, don't s'pose you have a link? tried a google search got nothing

Everyone so far has either said that God doesn't exist, or that He does exist and 'is using us as playthings to amuse himself', or something similar. No body has given the opinion that, if He does exist, there was simply no reason for him to do so. There is no scientific reason to explain why we're here, so everyone turns to religion for an answer. However, I think that if religion is a real concept, that there is no reason for our existence. If there was a reason, I believe it would be a little easier to find. These are the two options in my mind:
a) By a complete fluke, the big bang happened and created the universe, and all within it.
b) By a complete fluke, God created the universe, and all within it.