If "God" exists?

Des Carter

Ok just curious if it turns out that a "God" does exist, what do you think "he" would be like?

Note*: when I use the word "God" I am not just referring to the Christian image of a giant man in the sky. The word can be interpreted in a general sense and can deal with any aspect of life, death, faith, creation etc etc.

Sam Vimes

Well the idea of an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being is completely incompatible with the reality of this universe and if something doesn't possess those characteristics, to quote Epicurus, then why call it god?

If it turned out that there was a god, it would have a lot of explaining to do before I would stop referring to it as "that sadistic bastard"

Or are you asking what we would like to think a god would be like?

strobe

Impossible to hazard any kind of educated guess for me. There is no reason to believe it would be in any way similar to any life that evolved on Earth, or even anything in the universe that exists, in terms of appearance or behaviour. I doubt any human language would even be adequate to describe it.

I read a quote once discussing quantum mechanics, I can't remember it word for word, but it went something like.

"The problem with quantum mechanics, is that we are trying to describe it using a language originally developed to tell other monkeys where the best fruit is"

Swap out quantum mechanics for 'god' and I think it sums things up nicely.

amacachi

He would be someone who could impregnate a human with offspring that was also him.

I realise that's an absolutely ridiculous idea to try and get your head around, it came to me during an acid trip.

Des Carter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well the idea of an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being is completely incompatible with the reality of this universe and if something doesn't possess those characteristics, to quote Epicurus, then why call it god?

If it turned out that there was a god, it would have a lot of explaining to do before I would stop referring to it as "that sadistic bastard"

Or are you asking what we would like to think a god would be like?

You can interpret the word God any way you want even if it doesnt have all the characteristics that you listed above. As to why call it God, it is the simplest word to describe it.

For example you can believe in a creator God who just created the world and then left it there to run its course without any further interference.

For the last question no. Im asking more that if it was proven that a God does in fact exists what would you rationally think/believe hes like.

liamw

An energy, a force, a quantum flucuation, a spark.. something that perhaps the human species may never understand, something that our physical and mathematical laws cannot represent.

Certainly there is no reason to anthropomorphize this. The universe appears to operate as blind and indifferent to all, including us.

liamw

Des Carter wrote: »

For example you can believe in a creator God who just created the world and then left it there to run its course without any further interference.

Again, that's anthropomorphizing. A natural, yet illogical, tendancy for us all to do.

Sam Vimes

Des Carter wrote: »

You can interpret the word God any way you want even if it doesnt have all the characteristics that you listed above. As to why call it God, it is the simplest word to describe it.

For example you can believe in a creator God who just created the world and then left it there to run its course without any further interference.

For the last question no. Im asking more that if it was proven that a God does in fact exists what would you rationally think/believe hes like.

The thing is that in order to be called a god something must possess certain characteristics and just having created the universe doesn't cut it. It could have been created by some kind of gravitational anomaly and no one would call such a thing a god.

If it was rationally proven that there was a god, it would have to be either a deistic god that has no interest in its creation or the metaphysical equivalent of a child with an ant farm and a magnifying glass.

eblistic

Des Carter wrote: »

You can interpret the word God any way you want

If that's the case then the rest of this thread is going to be totally pointless isn't it?

Des Carter

eblistic wrote: »

If that's the case then the rest of this thread is going to be totally pointless isn't it?

Possibly, but it would be even more pointless if I asked "if an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being did actuall exist, what would he be like?" as he would have to be all powerful, all loving and inteligent.

The biggest problem people face when arguing/discussing God is what the word God actually means - Iv heard everthing from a man in the sky to a type of force to the smile on a babies face, and so I am just curious as to what you think God would be if he did exist.

Gregor Samsa

What would a Yeti be if it did exist? We wouldn't know until we could confirm its existence. Same for your hypothetical god.

The only way to really answer your question would be to change it to "if god had to exist, what would you like it to be?"

My answer would be like Bender from Futurama, when he had that civilisation growing on him.

eblistic

Des Carter wrote: »

Possibly, but it would be even more pointless if I asked "if an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being did actuall exist, what would he be like?" as he would have to be all powerful, all loving and inteligent.

The biggest problem people face when arguing/discussing God is what the word God actually means - Iv heard everthing from a man in the sky to a type of force to the smile on a babies face, and so I am just curious as to what you think God would be if he did exist.

Fair enough. "what constitutes a god?" is an interesting question alright. To that I'd say there must be some kind of supernatural element to it. And no-one here is likely to admit that any such thing is plausible.

Essentially any entity that an atheist agrees could plausibly exist is not going to be an entity that they would concede is a god.

Is your question for agnostics mainly?

Sam Vimes

Des Carter wrote: »

Possibly, but it would be even more pointless if I asked "if an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being did actuall exist, what would he be like?" as he would have to be all powerful, all loving and inteligent.

The biggest problem people face when arguing/discussing God is what the word God actually means - Iv heard everthing from a man in the sky to a type of force to the smile on a babies face, and so I am just curious as to what you think God would be if he did exist.

My answer to your question: if it was proven that a god existed I think it would be some kind of gravitational anomaly, because that's the type of thing that I imagine caused the universe to be created, but I would never call a gravitational anomaly god.

If we don't just make up whatever definition we want for the word god, making the word completely meaningless, and instead use a somewhat accepted definition, I think that if a god was proven to exist it would be an all powerful, all knowing and all loving intelligent being, because those characteristics are the bare minimum something must possess before I would give it the label god

Goduznt Xzst

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok just curious if it turns out that a "God" does exist, what do you think "he" would be like?

In my mind, humans add a lot of pomp and ceremony to the idea of "God" to back up the claims that it can make you, and your loved ones, live forever.

"Oh you doubt he can end your suffering, he created those stars right, so ending your suffering is easy... fact!"

The religious really don't care if it made the Universe or any of that jazz, they only seem to care about it as it reassures them this entity is powerful enough to make them exist for eternity.

So, when you boil it down, for a being to be considered a God by humans all it really needs to be able to do is offer you a technology that will allow you to live young and healthy for as long as you choose.

mikhail

A thing which would find the idea that our minds are superior to that of a squirrel in any meaningful way to be amusing, which would find us utterly uninteresting. A thing perhaps forever beyond our ken.

ShooterSF

phutyle wrote: »

What would a Yeti be if it did exist? We wouldn't know until we could confirm its existence. Same for your hypothetical god.

The only way to really answer your question would be to change it to "if god had to exist, what would you like it to be?"

My answer would be like Bender from Futurama, when he had that civilisation growing on him.

One of my favourite episodes:

Bender: It was awful. I tried helping them, I tried not helping them but in the end I couldn't do them any good. Do you think what I did was wrong?

"God": Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do.

Bender: Yeah I know, that's why I asked if what I did-- Forget it.

"God": Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down the bar for the insurance money.

"God": Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

______

Assuming God must at least be self aware to be considered god (and thats being loose with the terms), I would say the most likely type is like Lisa in the Halloween special where she accidentally creates life but has no magical powers to make an impact on their life! It would explain a lot (other than how god came into existence in the first place of course ).

robindch

Des Carter wrote: »

if it turns out that a "God" does exist, what do you think "he" would be like? [...] The word can be interpreted in a general sense and can deal with any aspect of life, death, faith, creation [...]

It's not really all that fair to ask people to speculate on what something might be like, when you explicitly say that the something can be just about anything.

For myself, I think I'd feel that this god character might be a little bit nurdlesquipulated.

Wouldn't you?

Galvasean

He looks like this:

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok just curious if it turns out that a "God" does exist, what do you think "he" would be like?

Note*: when I use the word "God" I am not just referring to the Christian image of a giant man in the sky. The word can be interpreted in a general sense and can deal with any aspect of life, death, faith, creation etc etc.

A issue with such a question is that the term God implies something already. You can see this when you consider god a just an alien. Doesn't have quite the same connotations. The concept of god is more about ticking off human needs than the thing itself. If it fulfills particular human needs we consider it a god, if it doesn't we don't. That doesn't have much to do with the thing itself

If we simply mean intelligence that created the universe (which may not tick enough of these boxes for some people to consider such an alien being a god) then it is very difficult to speculate what such a being would be like as we have no frame of reference. Appeals to the idea that it would be "loving" or "benevolent" seem redundant as these are evolved emotional instincts that fit peticular evolutionary needs we as humans have. This would again be simply an response to what we need a god to be, and would have no baring on what such a creator alien would be like.

One would imagine that such an alien would understand it's creation and be interested in it but it is rather illogical to assume we are an important part of said creation when we occupy such a tiny part of it. So it would seem unlikely that life on Earth would be of any great interest to this creator. This again may not tick the boxes one requires to consider such an alien a god.

It is also possible that such an alien creator doesn't understand it's creation, or doesn't possess the ability to interact with it's creation, and must sit back and just observe what it has started.

Improbable

Galvasean wrote: »

He looks like this:

LIES!!!!



You are hereby corrected.

MrPudding

I will call him multivax.

Any excuse and i will trot this one out:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html


MrP

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If it turned out that there was a god, it would have a lot of explaining to do before I would stop referring to it as "that sadistic bastard"

Er.. if God exists then he would directly or indirectly be responsible for the good as well as the bad. You could thank him for your ability to enjoy, to love, to relate. He would be the one responsible for beauty (or your ability to consider something beautiful given that you'd likely have a nothing-is-objectively-the-case mindset).

It seems to me that IF this is but a preliminary to another existance AND we get to choose from the available options when it comes to the nature of that other existance THEN it is only sensible that we be exposed to something of what those existances have to offer.

I mean, if the wrath of God is to be one of those options then it doesn't make sense to wish away exposure to it at this preliminary time.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. if God exists then he would directly or indirectly be responsible for the good as well as the bad. You could thank him for your ability to enjoy, to love, to relate. He would be the one responsible for beauty (or your ability to consider something beautiful given that you'd likely have a nothing-is-objectively-the-case mindset).

It seems to me that IF this is but a preliminary to another existance AND we get to choose from the available options when it comes to the nature of that other existance THEN it is only sensible that we be exposed to something of what those existances have to offer.

I mean, if the wrath of God is to be one of those options then it doesn't make sense to wish away exposure to it at this preliminary time.

If god as you understand it exists then he is all powerful, yet chooses to allow millions of people to die in tragic and agonising circumstances that are totally out of their control (but within his control). Thanking god for the good in the midst of all the bad is like thanking your kidnapper for letting you watch a bit of telly and making you a nice dinner before he rapes and murders you.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god as you understand it exists then he is all powerful, yet chooses to allow millions of people to die in tragic and agonising circumstances that are totally out of their control (but within his control). Thanking god for the good in the midst of all the bad is like thanking your kidnapper for letting you watch a bit of telly and making you a nice dinner before he rapes and murders you.

So if someone lives a contented, happy and fulfilling life and dies in pain that renders all the good relatively irrelevant? Or perhaps you're talking about a life of the kind that you yourself are unlikely to experience (in which case I'd ask you to include the millions who live happy fulfilling lives in your assessment)?

Would you describe the people who choose to allow millions of people to die in tragic circumstances that are totally out of their control (but over which we could exercise huge amounts of control) as sadistic too?

Beruthiel

I will repeat, until it becomes truth.
His name is Q

gbee

Des Carter wrote: »

Note*: when I use the word "God" I am not just referring to the Christian image of a giant man in the sky. The word can be interpreted in a general sense and can deal with any aspect of life, death, faith, creation etc etc.

See, there's a basic problem, as I was brought up a Roman CC my vision of what God should be is pathologically ingrained in me.

If this had not happened, I might be more disposed to accept the concept of a God, but so much has been proven wrong, I just dismiss the whole thing.

I used to consider energy as God, but even now we know there are at least three different energies running the universe, explosive, gravity, dark matter. But all end up working together, even if it means the total Annihilation of vast reacts of the universe in order for the universe to survive overall.

See, every religious story ever told ... just substitute ......

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

One would imagine that such an alien would understand it's creation and be interested in it but it is rather illogical to assume we are an important part of said creation when we occupy such a tiny part of it.

I don't see how logic would bring you to that conclusion. The size of a thing relative to it's surroundings isn't necessarily a indicator of it's value (compare diamonds and sludge ). Indeed, something might be completely immaterial yet be valued highly (love, respect, beauty, etc)

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. if God exists then he would directly or indirectly be responsible for the good as well as the bad. You could thank him for your ability to enjoy, to love, to relate. He would be the one responsible for beauty (or your ability to consider something beautiful given that you'd likely have a nothing-is-objectively-the-case mindset).

It takes a human to love, but it takes a god to send a wave to kill 230,000 people. :pac:

Although I think this kind of thinking is redundant for this thread. I believe don't anyone here entertains for a moment the idea of a loving/hating interventionist god. That idea is just so at odds with reality.

IF something existed that in theory we could call a god I think it would be far beyond our understanding anyway. The idea that it would be some sort of being we could relate to or chat with is just loopy.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The size of a thing relative to it's surroundings isn't necessarily a indicator of it's value (compare diamonds and sludge ).

Diamonds, like humans, are plentiful and their value is only given to them by humans (particularly the ones in cartels).

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Although I think this kind of thinking is redundant for this thread. I believe don't anyone here entertains for a moment the idea of a loving/hating interventionist god. That idea is just so at odds with reality.

How so, love and hate are the cornerstones of our world.

IF something existed that in theory we could call a god I think it would be far beyond our understanding anyway. The idea that it would be some sort of being we could relate to or chat with is just loopy.

II don't see the problem if we are a derivation of God. It would mean there'd be like-units shared between us. Thus relation possible

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Diamonds, like humans, are plentiful and their value is only given to them by humans (particularly the ones in cartels).

Granted they are far more plentiful than the cartels will let on. But not on a par with sludge. Point being, the relative scarcity of humans (on a universal scale) doesn't prevent value being assigned by a creator

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

How so, love and hate are the cornerstones of our world.

That's not really relevant to his point, it's rhetoric.

The idea of a loving/hating interventionist God is completely at odds with reality because there is zero evidence whatsoever that one exists, in fact all of the evidence points to one not existing. The nature of reality is one such that it doesn't require an interventionist god, regardless of biase, in order to work the way that it does. Adding such a God into the mix just raises more questions than it answers.

I think the problem with asking the "what would God be like" question is that there are a number of inconsistencies when you actually explore the possibilities.

"God" as it is commonly defined, is all-knowing and all-powerful. That seems to be the basic precondition - any less and it's simply nothing more than a very powerful and wise alien. It doesn't necessarily have to love or hate us.

In order to maintain consistency with reality, we must assume that God is not interventionist on a day-to-day basis.

If he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, then one would assume that upon creating the universe, he refrained from taking any further action. Further actions imply that his original action was incomplete or had errors, therefore it is not compatible with being all-knowing and all-powerful.

So now we have a God who created the universe - perhaps created that single point-mass-energy which instantly resulted in a big bang.

The question now is why. If he is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, before it happened. So why bother? It can't be curiosity, it can't be for worship - he's already all-knowing and all-powerful, what could worship possibly give him that he doesn't already have? If he already knows exactly how it starts and how it ends, then why bother? Is he bored? Perhaps, like watching the same movie over-and-over, he does this all the time. But since he's all-powerful, he exists outside of the 4 dimensions of time and space, so the idea of "start" and "end" are meaningless.

If the universe was created as an experiment, then he is not all-knowing, and therefore not God.

And we hit an obvious impasse.

In order for the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God to be consistent with reality, we have to imagine him setting up dominos in a configuration which he has seen a million times before, knocking them down and then setting them up again, over and over.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. if God exists then he would directly or indirectly be responsible for the good as well as the bad. You could thank him for your ability to enjoy, to love, to relate. He would be the one responsible for beauty (or your ability to consider something beautiful given that you'd likely have a nothing-is-objectively-the-case mindset).

The report into failings of the HSE to deal with years of child abuse in a Roscommon home was published yesterday.

Do you think the children in this family should have been as equally thankful to their abusive parents as angry with them since the parents did occasionally feed them, gave them some where to live, only raping them every few months rather than every day etc? Better than nothing isn't it?

Doesn't really work like that, does it? :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think the children in this family should have been as equally thankful to their abusive parents as angry with them since the parents did occasionally feed them, gave them some where to live, only raping them every few months rather than every day etc? Better than nothing isn't it?

So far so Sams sadistic god. Now over to the god also responsible for the parents of children whose parents loved them. What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

So if someone lives a contented, happy and fulfilling life and dies in pain that renders all the good relatively irrelevant? Or perhaps you're talking about a life of the kind that you yourself are unlikely to experience (in which case I'd ask you to include the millions who live happy fulfilling lives in your assessment)?

Would you describe the people who choose to allow millions of people to die in tragic circumstances that are totally out of their control (but over which we could exercise huge amounts of control) as sadistic too?

When you point to the good and ignore the bad and also when you ask if we are sadistic for "allowing" suffering to happen, you are forgetting that your god is all powerful. Massive numbers of people who dedicated their entire lives to preventing suffering could only make a tiny dent in the amount of suffering in the world. There is simply too much of the type of suffering we can prevent and there are a multitude of types of suffering that we can't prevent no matter how much we would like to (e.g. incurable diseases). There will always be suffering no matter how much humans try to prevent. it.

But god is all powerful, he could eliminate all suffering with a thought. If your god exists then every single instance of suffering that there has ever been happened because your god expressly decided that it would happen. To try to excuse this you have compared the all powerful creator of the universe to tiny powerless human beings and asked if we're sadistic for not dedicating our entire lives to do one trillionth of the amount of good that your god could do with a thought. Anyone who has ever done anything to help someone else is better than your god, because the only reason they needed help was that your god decided to make them suffer.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

The idea of a loving/hating interventionist God is completely at odds with reality because there is zero evidence whatsoever that one exists, in fact all of the evidence points to one not existing.

You forgot to add "...as viewed through a perticular philosophical lens as to how one should view and evaluate reality".

The nature of reality is one such that it doesn't require an interventionist god, regardless of biase, in order to work the way that it does. Adding such a God into the mix just raises more questions than it answers.

An erroneous application of Occams Razor. No one can say what is required in order for the universe to operate as it does. If an intervention by God is required to, for example, sustain the laws of nature which sustain so much else then so would it be.

Your best avenue of approach is supposing all the gaps eventually filled. An expression of faith in other words.

I think the problem with asking the "what would God be like" question is that there are a number of inconsistencies when you actually explore the possibilities.

"God" as it is commonly defined, is all-knowing and all-powerful. That seems to be the basic precondition - any less and it's simply nothing more than a very powerful and wise alien.

Agreed.

It doesn't necessarily have to love or hate us.

True.

In order to maintain consistency with reality, we must assume that God is not interventionist on a day-to-day basis.

Why is this? God could be ever at work without it having any effect on the apparent consistancy of reality.

If he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, then one would assume that upon creating the universe, he refrained from taking any further action. Further actions imply that his original action was incomplete or had errors, therefore it is not compatible with being all-knowing and all-powerful.

What's the problem with his original creative action being incomplete and permitting further interaction. I can't see how his allknowing/powerfulness is affected by this.

So now we have a God who created the universe - perhaps created that single point-mass-energy which instantly resulted in a big bang.

The question now is why. If he is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, before it happened.

As with so many avenues of investigation, we appear to run into impregnable mists at the point of furthest reach. Consider your statement: before the creation of time (if time is part of the creation) there is no before/after. And so, the whole frame of reference for your objection evaporates - as you yourself conclude.

But since he's all-powerful, he exists outside of the 4 dimensions of time and space, so the idea of "start" and "end" are meaningless.

Your attempt to corner Gods intent in this fashion is rendered meaningless. It doesn't mean he is not without meaningful to him intent.

If the universe was created as an experiment, then he is not all-knowing, and therefore not God.

Non sequitur. We don't know the nature of Gods all-knowingness. If everything that occurs is determined to occur then there is no experiment about it. If however, his all-knowingness arises from his being present at every point in time to observe what is occurring then there can be experiement. We make our own choices and God is at every point to observe what we do.

Observating what occurs doesn't determine what occurs.

In order for the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God to be consistent with reality, we have to imagine him setting up dominos in a configuration which he has seen a million times before, knocking them down and then setting them up again, over and over.

See above.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

So far so Sams sadistic god. Now over the god also responsible for the parents of children whose parents loved them. What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

I'm a responsible parent and my kids love me.
I'm also happy to credit myself (and my family) rather than a deity I believe doesn't exist.

But similarly I also accredit giant tsunamis to the forces of the natural world (and not a deity), as to not assign blame and credit consistently would be wrong.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you point to the good and ignore the bad

I'm not ignoring the bad. I'm pointing out that your 'sadistic god' ignores the good. And so is incomplete.

and also when you ask if we are sadistic for "allowing" suffering to happen, you are forgetting that your god is all powerful. Massive numbers of people who dedicated their entire lives to preventing suffering could only make a tiny dent in the amount of suffering in the world.

You know that you could ease the agony of many, many people merely by giving up everything bar what you need to sustain you (still in far greater comfort and health than they could ever hope for). You have that power - you don't exercise it. Nor do I.

Leaving semantic wriggling aside, aren't we sadistic by that same measure?

You forget too that all-powerfulness isn't taken to mean God can do simply anything at all. He could resolve all suffering - but could he do that and leave mankind with freewill at the same time? It would seem not. So if you're howling now, just wait for the howls if God actually began implementing your request.

There is simply too much of the type of suffering we can prevent and there are a multitude of types of suffering that we can't prevent no matter how much we would like to (e.g. incurable diseases). There will always be suffering no matter how much humans try to prevent it.

Which is besides the point.

But god is all powerful, he could eliminate all suffering with a thought.If your god exists then every single instance of suffering that there has ever been happened because your god expressly decided that it would happen.

To try to excuse this you have compared the all powerful creator of the universe to tiny powerless human beings and asked if we're sadistic for not dedicating our entire lives to do one trillionth of the amount of good that your god could do with a thought. Anyone who has ever done anything to help someone else is better than your god, because the only reason they needed help was that your god decided to make them suffer.

Leaving aside the problem of goodness, we've got his 'sadistic' element (large scale because he is large scale) and your 'sadistic' element (small scale because you are small scale).

If I put your small pile of rotting meat before a nose, will it smell any worse than Gods large pile of the same substance? I don't think so. You are as omnipotent as God in your own realm.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

I'm a responsible parent and my kids love me.
I'm also happy to credit myself (and my family) rather than a deity I believe doesn't exist.

But similarly I also accredit giant tsunamis to the forces of the natural world (and not a deity), as to not assign blame and credit consistently would be wrong.

Better that than Sams conveniently lopsided viewpoint.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

An erroneous application of Occams Razor. No one can say what is required in order for the universe to operate as it does. If an intervention by God is required to, for example, sustain the laws of nature which sustain so much else then so would it be.

I addressed this later on. If God needs to continually intervene in his creation, then he cannot be all-powerful, otherwise he would have created it without the need for intervention. Or he's bored an he's intentionally introduced flaws so that he can fix them later on. Doesn't seem logical to me.

Why is this? God could be ever at work without it having any effect on the apparent consistancy of reality.

If you think about this logically, you're saying that the basis of reality is that God is constantly "propping it up" and without this intervention, reality as we know it would collapse. That is, if God stopped intervening, then reality would become inconsistent - things which previously used to happen, would stop happening.
Which goes back to my argument above.

What's the problem with his original creative action being incomplete and permitting further interaction. I can't see how his allknowing/powerfulness is affected by this.

Because what's the point? If it exists outside of time, then "interaction" is irrelevant, there's nothing to be observed, because the very act of observation requires time.

We don't know the nature of Gods all-knowingness.

Actuallym that's an absolute. You're either all-knowing or you're not. There's no "nature" to it. If God doesn't know everything, he's not God. Simple as.

If everything that occurs is determined to occur then there is no experiment about it. If however, his all-knowingness arises from his being present at every point in time to observe what is occurring then there can be experiement. We make our own choices and God is at every point to observe what we do.

But as I point out, observation is meaningless without time. You can't "observe" anything if you can see the start, middle and end all the same time. Observation by definition is watching something over time. From God's point of view, time is meaningless, so there's nothing to observe. At best you could say that he "measures" the whole from start to finish since he is present for it all, but that too precludes that he is attempting to obtain knowledge that he doesn't have.

The very notion of "Free Will" is inconsistent with the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If free will exists, then God cannot be "all-knowing". If God is all-knowing, then we cannot have free will since our actions are already predetermined. You even say this yourself - everything that occurs is determined to occur.
Therefore no free will, therefore no intervention. Which neatly comes back to the start of my point - if God does not intervene and already knows everything, why would he create a universe?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Better that than Sams conveniently lopsided viewpoint.

You're the only one with a lob sided viewpoint mate. You're talking about a god that could eliminate all suffering if he wanted but chooses not to and telling me that I should love him because he allows some good to happen along with the bad. Sorry but I expect more from a supposedly all powerful and all loving being than I do from tiny powerless human beings (apparently unlike you) and considering the relative efforts involved in humans combating suffering and god doing it, we're getting a hell of a lot less.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the bad. I'm pointing out that your 'sadistic god' ignores the good. And so is incomplete.

I'm not ignoring the good. The existence of both good and bad is compatible with the idea that there is no god and with the idea that there is a weak or sadistic god but the mere existence of bad is incompatible with an all powerful, all loving being.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know that you could ease the agony of many, many people merely by giving up everything bar what you need to sustain you (still in far greater comfort and health than they could ever hope for). You have that power - you don't exercise it. Nor do I.

Leaving semantic wriggling aside, aren't we sadistic by that same measure?

You forget too that all-powerfulness isn't taken to mean God can do simply anything at all. He could resolve all suffering - but could he do that and leave mankind with freewill at the same time? It would seem not. So if you're howling now, just wait for the howls if God actually began implementing your request.

I have the power to help a few people with great personal sacrifice. God has the power to help all with no sacrifice whatsoever. You can argue that I don't help people because I'm sadistic or at least selfish but your god is not supposed to possess these characteristics. I could help more people and it is a failing of myself that I don't. But I am not a god and I don't claim to be all loving. Pointing out that I don't meet the standards of an all loving god does not excuse your god for not meeting these standards

And if god can't eliminate suffering and still have free will, then he's not all-powerful. You can't just redefine the term when it becomes clear that the actual meaning of the term is incompatible with your god.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're the only one with a lob sided viewpoint mate. You're talking about a god that could eliminate all suffering if he wanted but chooses not to and telling me that I should love him because he allows some good to happen along with the bad.

There would be no 'you' around to love him if he was to resolve all suffering. Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

I'm not positing 'all powerfulness' as being able to give you everything you can possibly think of - no matter how irrational.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the good. The existence of both good and bad is compatible with the idea that there is no god

Not relevant to our discussion

and with the idea that there is a weak or sadistic god

Now that you're not ignoring the good, where does good fit in with sadism?

but the mere existence of bad is incompatible with an all powerful, all loving being.

But it is compatible with a God who permits a persons expression of will. And is compatible with a God who is wrath against sin. The biblical God not being just about love.

I have the power to help a few people with great personal sacrifice. God has the power to help all with no sacrifice whatsoever. You can argue that I don't help people because I'm sadistic or at least selfish but your god is not supposed to possess these characteristics. I could help more people and it is a failing of myself that I don't. But I am not a god and I don't claim to be all loving. Pointing out that I don't meet the standards of an all loving god does not excuse your god for not meeting these standards

Does that element of wrath introduced above alleviate things at all? It appears to me that you (and so many others here) pick the dimensions of the biblical God that suit your book and ignore plain references to other dimensions that would interfere with the web of disbelief you want to weave for yourself.

Why not fact up to and reject God as described rather than one made in your own design.

And if god can't eliminate suffering and still have free will, then he's not all-powerful. You can't just redefine the term when it becomes clear that the actual meaning of the term is incompatible with your god.

Weak. Your positing all-powerfulness as the ability to create square circles. Such illogic sinks the ship you sail in for it permits a good God to be sadistic.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

So far so Sams sadistic god.

You missed the point (in some what of an ironic way considered what I just described was your god).

These parents feed these children, gave them a home, provided them with schooling and clothes etc. All these things are good.

They also raped them, beat them, mistreated them. All these things are bad (very bad)

So should these children be equally grateful to the parents for the first set of things as they are angry at the parents for the second set of things? Should these children be grateful these parents did anything for them at all? And should this gratefulness cancel out the atrocities the parents did to these children?

Since when as doing good excused doing bad? Since when did it become unreasonable to expect that someone who is supposed to love you only did good things to you?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

I would imagine that Sam would say that simply because someone does something supportive for you doesn't excuse when they do something horrific to you.

nozzferrahhtoo

If there was some non-human intelligence responsible for the creation of this universe and I were to think what it might be like, I would probably picture something quite like us.

I picture in my mind research projects like CERN, which essentially create things that never created before. There was even talk that what they created could be “mini” universes.

What they create flashes up and disappears, but what if those universes have time like ours, yet what is a flash to us is the entire expansion and collapse of a universe to them?

It could be therefore that any creator of our universe is not only not a personal and caring god, but may in fact be wholly and entirely unaware that we even exist.

Theists often blag on about how “fine tuned for life” our universe is. This is such a self-centric view as to be comical. The universe is relatively massive and ours is the only life within it that we know of. That all this universe was created to house us in a little corner of it is simply comedy.

In fact if we were to engage in the thus far entirely baseless fantasy that our universe IS fine tuned at all, then it seems fine tuned for many other things which it does a whole lot better than produce life. The most obvious is as a machine for producing Black Holes, a task the universe achieves with remarkable efficiency and frequency.

So what would I imagine god being like if I were to engage in such pointless fantasy? I would picture it as being an industrious scientist conducting experiments and building machines of which we ourselves may be a random, possibly even unknown, by product.

We could be like bacteria on a cheese in the days before the existence of bacteria was known. The cheese had a function to it’s creator, but that creator was wholly unaware of the life existing within it.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

No more than a doctor ties a patient "up in chains" by asking him to take a course in antibiotics.

Your argument is charmingly nonsensical.

Stercus Accidit

Every string or atom in our universe is a piece of information being processed, our universe is a magnificent quantum graphics card, running some beautiful game on hi-res. We were booted into action at the big bang and we will shut down some day, after a furious rage quit...

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

There would be no 'you' around to love him if he was to resolve all suffering. Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

I'm not positing 'all powerfulness' as being able to give you everything you can possibly think of - no matter how irrational.

Weak. Your positing all-powerfulness as the ability to create square circles. Such illogic sinks the ship you sail in for it permits a good God to be sadistic.

Yes I know the standard christian argument for why god allows babies to die from horrific deformities and it is as much bullsh!t now as it was the first time it was put forward. Our free will is already limited in myriad ways and if god cannot eliminate suffering without eliminating free will he's not all powerful, simple as that. Even if you could argue that eliminating suffering entirely would eliminate free will, babies being born with deformities has bugger all to do with free will and could be prevented without affecting it at all. I am not positing all-powerfulness to mean the ability to square circles, I am positing it as the ability to prevent motor neuron disease, measles, spina bifida, small pox etc etc etc. Things that we can prevent or alleviate ourselves despite our lack of all powerfulness and that would not affect free will in any way if god took them away

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does that element of wrath introduced above alleviate things at all? It appears to me that you (and so many others here) pick the dimensions of the biblical God that suit your book and ignore plain references to other dimensions that would interfere with the web of disbelief you want to weave for yourself.

Why not fact up to and reject God as described rather than one made in your own design.
...
Now that you're not ignoring the good, where does good fit in with sadism?

It would mean that god is not as sadistic as he could possibly be, just like people who regularly rape their children also feed and clothe them. The existence of some good does not excuse the bad even with flawed human beings, never mind with an all powerful god. Your argument is like a defendant in a murder trial and pointing out all the times that he didn't kill people as if that should excuse the one time he did.

I don't have to ignore good at all to call your god sadistic but you have to come up with pathetic excuses about free will to explain the massive amounts of suffering that he expressly allows, you have to convince yourself that we would be mindless automatons if god prevented schizophrenia, alzheimer's disease and earthquakes. The argument doesn't make any sense

Turtwig

I'd say if God exists He's probably nothing like all the religions like to claim He is like. I just hope he is a she, and she is super is sexy. Yeah, I'm that shallow.

gbee

Malty_T wrote: »

I'd say if God exists He's probably nothing like all the religions like to claim He is like. I just hope he is a she, and she is super is sexy. Yeah, I'm that shallow.

Don't be. See the odd thing about deities all over the world and from aeons back in time was their love of copulation with us.

Every sect, everywhere has the idea that sex is related to deity. Some religions the dominant being is a male, in others it is female but watch out, in others again it's a cat ~~ youch!

But, your choice is there!