FatherOleg posted this in an earlier thread. I found it kinda interesting. God doesnt exist because he is a bad god? Seems to me this is no reason for disbelief. Sort of in the same vein as saying Dubya doesn't exist because he is a bad president. I'm using the bible itself as a reference point here in knowing god, in spite of the fact that we have amongst us believers who would claim that the bible is not the final source of truth. We've all heard the arguments for and against god, and how we can't understand the mind of god and all that... but what if we do? what if this guy is merely some immensely powerful being who has absolutely no idea of what he's done (sort of like the US president really), and is in the long-winded process of the exploration of us? I want to explore the possibility of a fallible god.
Squid, I can go along with that. The discovery of an ant’s nest has a parallel here. It is fascinating to watch for a while, especially if it has been disturbed and all the workers become busy carrying and protecting the eggs. When bored we then usually ruthlessly destroy the nest because it is in our back yard. Could a creator god be just as ruthless towards us? If he is not omniscient and doesn’t know everything but has the ultimate power of creation and destruction then perhaps he creates different scenarios so he can study and learn. Much the same way we might conduct laboratory experiments on rats. The question I guess is what is the benefit to a god for creating us. If he can do anything and knows everything then what does he get out of it? If he just wants companionship then it seems he could easily create suitable companions without all this Earth stuff with judgment and heaven and hell nonsense. If a god were to exist then it seems far more credible for him to be fallible and had an understandable need. Or he could be utterly callous and simply enjoys watching conflict and pain. Cris
God is so closely involved in people's lives that you can't "see wood for the trees". He isn't outside, over everything - when Jesus left, He also left us the Holy Spirit as His presence on earth. And the Holy Spirit is such intrinsic reality, God is such a personal God to every one of His followers, that you will have to "in the foxhole" with a Christian to be able to see what we're fighting against and fighting for. Does anybody here have any personal friends who are Christians? And I mean friends, not acquantances.
Well the point was it was a bad argument. You can't claim there to be no God and have as an explanation that God isn't really any good at his job. If there is no God then it is not possible for God to be bad at his job. The problem with a fallible God to my mind would be that it undermines the Christian faith, a falible God wouldn't be omnipotent, omniscient etc. I like the idea 'tho. As Bill Hicks said "look at me, I'm a prankster God, I'm fucking with you."
Originally posted by FatherOleg The problem with a fallible God to my mind would be that it undermines the Christian faith, a falible God wouldn't be omnipotent, omniscient etc. Probably the primary reason why the theists would not countenance the idea. It makes organised religion look.. absurd. As Bill Hicks said "look at me, I'm a prankster God, I'm fucking with you." There's another alternative. Perhaps god is indeed loving, wise, and benevolent. Perhaps he's also a little guilty of "intellectual snobbery" in that he can't see a viewpoint other than his own. we all know the syndrome... failing to properly address an argument against an idea of your own because you don't value the intelligence of the one making the argument. Perhaps he's even guilty of ad hominem. Failing to see we might have valid issues to redress simply because we're only humans.
Jenyar, That is preaching not debating. Can you substantiate your assertions, or are they just baseless religious dogma? That is an argument against the Christian god. All Christians create their own image and meaning for their god, i.e. the personal touch, because there is no common frame of reference. There is no difference between such personal images as there is to self-delusions. Without factual evidence you have no way to distinguish between the two and you cannot know that you are not simply delusional. I have close personal friends who are Christian and I was a devout Christian myself some 30 years ago. You only have wishful thinking, myths, and fantasies. Cris
fatheroleg, And the argument continues with the observation that evil exists which means such a god cannot be omnibenevolent because he could prevent evil through his omnipotence. He therefore must want evil and is therfore an evil god. But since that is the opposite of the Christians claims then clearly the Christian god CANNOT exist given their claimed criteria. That is a paradox. If the Christian god cannot exist then obviously he does not exist. Cris
A fallible, vindictive, petty, egomaniacal, and inconstant God that's just fucking with us? (But really, really, loves us... believe it or burn in hell.) Sure. Sounds more reasonable than many of the other definitions. Why not? ~Raithere
I meant 'personal' as in 'personal attention' not 'personal interpretation'. You can interpret God in many ways, but you can only follow one God (or set of gods). It is just as important to have the right picture of God, than it is to follow the right God. God does not miraculously convert everybody (that would mean taking away free will), but Jesus asked His followers to be an example of His love. Contrary to muscleman's pereption, nobody can, condemn anybody else to hell (who is he to know anyway?). If there were more options beside heaven and hell, what would be the point of right and wrong, or of justice? You either live or you don't. That isn't easy to accept either. I'd love to hear anybody argue against death convincingly, though. By extention, heaven and hell is a continuation. You either go over the bridge, or you fall over the edge. Don't blame God - He built the bridge!
Jenyar, I don’t think there is a difference. Without an independent objective observation of the alleged god’s activities we are reduced to having to accept the believer’s assertions that he/she is receiving personal attention. Again, how do you distinguish between a potential god giving such attention and the self-delusion of the believer? The claim of personal attention comes directly from the claimant without any possibility of independent confirmation. The result remains one of personal interpretation again. This is for certain judging by the numerous religious cults especially Christian cults that exist. Why? This claim seems to be a non sequitur. You appear to be assuming there is only one god in the same sentence as implying there are multiple gods from which to choose. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. You imply that he does convert some people as opposed to everyone. Isn’t that taking away their free will? Why would he CHOOSE some above others? If he is truly omni benevolent then wouldn’t he want everyone to be ‘saved’ and hence could easily convert everyone? But free-will is impossible with an omniscient creator. If he knows the future with perfect knowledge then people are powerless to make any choices other than those choices the god had pre-determined for them at the beginning of time. If people were able to make free choices, i.e. choose something that was not pre-determined then such a god could not be omniscient. The obvious is that one ceases to exist. is that what you meant? I’m very unclear as to your point here so I will guess. To someone who expects to cease to exist at some point then the short life they have becomes extremely precious. The need for right, wrong, and justice become essential if the short lifetime is to be maximized and enjoyed to the fullest. For example if I commit a crime I run the risk of being caught and punished which will detract from the quality of my life. If justice is not present then there is a risk that again my life could be shortened or devalued. Whereas doing things that enhance my environment and help my neighbors is likely to have a positive feedback on the quality and duration of my life. This is otherwise known as rational morality. Contrast that to the believer of an afterlife who is free to dismiss life as just a temporary stage in an eternal life. Earthly life cannot be seen as quite so precious to such individuals and this in turn helps to justify wars in which a glorious and heroic death ensures eternal life in a supernatural paradise. These become more self-delusions and turn emphasis away from protecting and preserving life. A truly loving father would have ensured no such place as hell could exist, and if it did he would destroy it. A loving father, especially one who is omnipotent would guarantee that every person is adequately educated so they would have the power to make al the correct choices. If hell exists then of course God is to blame – it would be his choice to create it, and it would be his choice to design humans in the way alleged. Hell would only exist because such an omnipotent god wants it to exist, and suffering would only exist by the same rationale. The Christian god by creating and wanting such things when he has the power to do otherwise can only be judged as evil. The Christian god either does not exist or is not worthy of existence. Cris
Cris, Yes, there is a difference: Let me make a more acceptable example. Everybody is familiar with the concept of "love". It is only one idea, but it could have multiple "personalities" such as: love the erotic (eros), love the affection (agape), and love the friend (philia). Sometimes just saying "I love you" is enough, and sometimes it is necessary to say "I love you like a brother". If love wasn't universal, then we wouldn't be able to call it "love" anymore, because it can be interpreted perversely (I'd 'love' to kill you). Yet we have enough examples of people who love to know that we all want the same real thing. Love is subjective, it's just a name people give to a set of emotions, needs and chemical reactions. Yet nobody who has ever had his best friend throw himself before an oncoming bullet to protect him, can deny the power and mystery of it. Can you say love exists independently of those people? That the person who fired the gun and the one who sacrificed himself were obeying the same 'love'? And yet even though it's intensely personal and different for everyone, we can describe properties of it and analyse it quite accurately. You don't know what kind of love someone has until they show it. That's the only proof. Can the act of 'not loving' ever be called love? You can choose not to believe in love, but still exhibit properties of it. You don't hate because you choose not to love. You might have had no reason to believe in love, until your friend sacrificed himself. Now it isn't so personal and subjective anymore, because you've "seen" it in action. Since believing in God is a choice, it follows that there are many alternative choices, such as not believing in anything, or choosing a religion (choosing a "god"). As a Christian, I believe that Jesus has made it possible to be saved. It depends on what you mean by "convert"... I mean: discovering that you are a sinner(1) and need saving(2) and are saved(3). That's YOUR work, not God's - even tough He made it possible for everybody to get saved in this way. In that sense you are chosen as well. I don't know how it can be so obvious to you that one ceases to exist after death. On what do you base that assumption? You want a god who is partial? By the way, it is Islam that believes God is both good and evil, not Christianity. You see how important it is that God demands you live your faith? Otherwise what you describe is exactly what would happen: people will do what they want because they knew they had eternal life anyway. Justice demands judgment. We suffer because of sin, not because of God. Would you have your own father take you out of this world to protect you from it? That would mean killing you. Do you want God to kill everybody? God created the world for a reason: He wants everybody to live in it. By mercy you're still alive, and you are living your choice.
Jenyar, Love is an emotion or set of emotions as you infer. But these are just emotions among all emotions that play an important role in our evolutionary survival. Evolution has enabled us to desire things that assist our survival. Love for example encourages us to seek safety, comfort, to procreate, and to care for others. These are all magnificent factors that have enabled us to be one of the most prolific animals on the planet and hence massively help increase the chances of species survival. I don’t see any role or need for the supernatural in any of that. But that wasn’t your point, I think. But to your point: Yes Ok, but why choose a religion? I make and have made many choices in my life; most of the more successful have been based on clear and careful reasoning. Choosing to reject religions was based on very simple logic – there is no factual basis to any religion. You express a belief in a Jesus and the need to be saved. So far there is no historical evidence to show that the Jesus of Christianity ever existed, and the alleged need to be saved is based on the mythical and paradoxical story of Adam and Eve. There is no need to make a choice in anything, but if a choice is to be made then logic provides probably the best method for choosing anything. But logic is based on factual evidence and that means that choosing any religion is perfectly illogical. To sin means to disobey the laws of a deity. To date no one can show such things exist; they are no more than fantasy ideas, they don’t exist – feel free to try to show me otherwise. It then becomes impossible for me to sin, since there are no gods. Therefore, of course, I have no need to be saved. I have never met any dead person who has come back to life, neither are then any records of any dead people coming back to life, outside of fantasy religions that have no factual credibility. If you can introduce me to a living person who has been clinically shown to be dead for some significant time before coming back to life then I’ll believe that death isn’t final. But all the evidence tells us that when we die we cease to exist. And the evidence is extremely credible. I don’t understand the question. I don’t want any gods and I don’t see that any are necessary. No, we suffer because we are still significantly ignorant about our environment and about ourselves. Science (the accumulation of knowledge) has been reducing that suffering for some centuries now and the rate of increasing knowledge appears non linear. When the world was ruled by religion it was known as the dark ages. We are very fortunate now that the oppressive and tyrannical rule of religion has been broken, at least for most of the world. All we need to do now is destroy the remnants, especially Christianity and Islam.
~ Of course God is fallible. Don't you read the bible? Why do you think he flooded the earth in Noah time? He was tired of is shity work. God isn't omnipotent too. After all he made the universe in 6 days, and rested in the 7 day. An omnipotent God doesn't need to rest.
Would it be easier to worship a fallible God? Suppose we had a loving, powerful creator. If an athiest were to say, "If there's a God why is there so much misery in the world", believers could point to the wonders of the Universe and say He did the best he could and on the whole His creation was an amazing thing. It's only His alleged perfection that leads to athiests, like me, nit-picking.
