• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God right by virtue of being the creator ?

I'm not sure how that relates to the special pleading, though. As I was saying, creating a new, expanding universe bubble, complete with its own matter and all, is actually theoretically possible. Out of our grasp for the moment, granted, but it doesn't violate any laws of physics, so it's at least theoretically possible to happen some day.

As someone else said, we wouldn't be able to control what happens inside. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't bother checking on each individual of each species that evolve in it, nor make a hell so tentacled blob Joe can go to it for sleeping with the same sex, or a heaven so tentacled blob Tim can go to it because he didn't, even if we could. Which we couldn't.

It just makes the special pleading... not very special, IMHO.
 
HansMustermann said:
I'm not sure how that relates to the special pleading, though. As I was saying, creating a new, expanding universe bubble, complete with its own matter and all, is actually theoretically possible. Out of our grasp for the moment, granted, but it doesn't violate any laws of physics, so it's at least theoretically possible to happen some day.

As someone else said, we wouldn't be able to control what happens inside. And I'm pretty sure we wouldn't bother checking on each individual of each species that evolve in it, nor make a hell so tentacled blob Joe can go to it for sleeping with the same sex, or a heaven so tentacled blob Tim can go to it because he didn't, even if we could. Which we couldn't.

It just makes the special pleading... not very special, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Personally I'm of the opinion that we won't be able to do this next week, next year or next century. But that's mere opinion.
 
Considering that it was a hypothetical thought exercise to start with, I'd say it's not very relevant if it's even actually possible, much less exactly how soon. If it happens in a billion years from now, the question is IMHO the same: does pushing that button make one automatically always right and perfectly moral?
 
Belz... said:
The OP, sorry.

The question is whether or not God is right by virtue of being the creator. A B and C seem to be at least answers of some type, but not D in my opinion.
Click to expand...
No problem. Sorry for the late reply BTW...

If I dig back decades-old memories from my Catholic times, if they are reliable and if they are typical or common for Abrahamic theists (as I believe them to be, based on shaky anecdotal data), then yes, "God is always right because he's the creator but no one can explain why." is close to what they think.

Truth is, few actually think hard about it. Theologists, priests, this or that individual certainly do, but they will not question dogmas such as there is a god and that god's decisions are unquestionable. Next step is to duck and cover under the shelter of freewill and god's mysterious ways.

I did the same during my long transition to atheism. After some time, I dumped Abrahamic god and embraced some other versions, more distant, not omni and so on. The absence of a god was not an option; god was too deeply embedded in my cultural background, in the fabric of the society I live within. Most people I know are at this stage; they seem to be somehow aware of these problems regarding Abrahamic god but can't just let it die. They then change it in many ways. They will still claim to believe in Jesus and the Abrahamic god, but when you look closely at what they believe, its some sort of personal god which may be quite far from the more strict Catholic and protestant doctrines. Its still, from our points of view, incoherent, irrational, without evidence, etc.
 
Can somebody explain what it means for some entity to be perfect?

If it means being without flaws or faults, and this supposed entity provides the arbitrary definition of good & bad, right & wrong, it seems circular or tautological - the entity is flawless and faultless, because it is the arbiter of what is a flaw or a fault...

God's biblical 'do as I say not as I do' approach also puzzles me - what God does is supposedly good, by definition, but is not an example for man to follow; so not only are good & bad and right & wrong arbitrary, but they change sides according to who's acting...
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
The point is that if we were to be able to do it, it wouldn't make us perfect.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that isn't the point. The OP was asking about the idea of God being perfect because he is the creator, but I was arguing that the two are not dependent on one another. God is perfect, and God is the creator. I then expressed an opinion (which I repeat is not my own opinion) that a non-perfect being couldn't create. Again, this was not necessarily directly related to the initial premise.

dlorde said:
Can somebody explain what it means for some entity to be perfect?
Click to expand...
And herein lies the problem with the entire discussion. :D
 
dlorde said:
Can somebody explain what it means for some entity to be perfect?

...snip...
Click to expand...
The answers I can think of would probably have some NSFW content.

Problem is, other people would (actually I'm pretty sure I can say will) disagree.

Perfection, morality, ethics, god, all these things are human constructs tied to culture and time; they are bound, thus, to change. Sure, there may be some shared basic traits, but as a whole these constructs are mostly relative and tied to the observers' POV and needs.

Due to the relative nature of cultural and social constructs, even tough its not a standard theist (probably not even deist) position, if there is a creator of some sort, its sentient creations have the right to judge their creator's ethics, morals and perfection...
 
Belz... said:
Ok, how is it reasonable ? How is god right in this scenario ?
Click to expand...
Its reasonable because it doesn't convey any attributes to that god, other than the generation of the existence we have to observe, (accepting that we are speculating about an entity which is the origin of our existence), from there we can make empirical observations and draw conclusions. These conclusions will always be coloured by our perspective.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Its reasonable because it doesn't convey any attributes to that god, other than the generation of the existence we have to observe, (accepting that we are speculating about an entity which is the origin of our existence), from there we can make empirical observations and draw conclusions. These conclusions will always be coloured by our perspective.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. WHY is he always right ?
 
Belz... said:
I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

I have (some small) faith in God. Which in many ways has been a surprising turn of events, given that I was an atheist for most of my life and I spent some time debating with Christians on various forums.

I experience the call to obedience and if I were to judge, there is nothing in my experience of God that would have disappointed the secular humanist in me. But, who am I to judge? God is good in surprising and overwhelming ways. God teaches me about goodness - the part of me that resists God wants to do things *my way*, and to my standards. I'm glad I'm not the ruler of any kingdoms.

God allows us to disagree, how could you be convinced in any other way than to *try God*?

If you concede that it is possible that God exists and that God loves us, to the point of his own suffering, then why miss out on exploring that hypothesis? As soon as I entered into the spirit of that exploration, I felt foolish for believing that my reasons not to do so were worth a hill of beans.

Why does anyone believe anything is good, other than they have faith that it is?
 
Democracy Simulator said:
I have (some small) faith in God. Which in many ways has been a surprising turn of events, given that I was an atheist for most of my life and I spent some time debating with Christians on various forums.

I experience the call to obedience and if I were to judge, there is nothing in my experience of God that would have disappointed the secular humanist in me. But, who am I to judge? God is good in surprising and overwhelming ways. God teaches me about goodness - the part of me that resists God wants to do things *my way*, and to my standards. I'm glad I'm not the ruler of any kingdoms.

God allows us to disagree, how could you be convinced in any other way than to *try God*?

If you concede that it is possible that God exists and that God loves us, to the point of his own suffering, then why miss out on exploring that hypothesis? As soon as I entered into the spirit of that exploration, I felt foolish for believing that my reasons not to do so were worth a hill of beans.

Why does anyone believe anything is good, other than they have faith that it is?
Click to expand...


God committed suicide for you?
 
punshhh said:
Its reasonable because it doesn't convey any attributes to that god, other than the generation of the existence we have to observe, (accepting that we are speculating about an entity which is the origin of our existence), from there we can make empirical observations and draw conclusions. These conclusions will always be coloured by our perspective.
Click to expand...

But you do. The moment you made god be always right, you gave it this extra attribute.

There is a difference between A) something that created the universe (e.g., the big bang), and B) something that created the universe AND is always right. Entity B has one more attribute.

In fact -- and this is the sin of most apologetics that pretend the god explanation to be simpler than it really is -- by even calling it a god, you gave it a ton more attributes that are part and parcel of even the most minimal definition of a god. You give it conscience and intent for a start, without which you don't have much of a god, nor much of a meaning in assigning creation to it, nor much sense in talking about it being right or wrong.

Something that ONLY has the attribute of being the source of creation is more like the big bang (or whatever other accident you wish, be it mystical, physical or whatever.) It created everything, but it's neither wrong nor right, since it makes no claims and has no intentional behaviour by which to judge its morals.

Basically, and this goes for most religious arguments, please do support the whole claim you're making, not just a tiny subset of it.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
God allows us to disagree, how could you be convinced in any other way than to *try God*?
Click to expand...

I could say the same about cyanide. Don't knock it before you try it ;)

Democracy Simulator said:
If you concede that it is possible that God exists and that God loves us, to the point of his own suffering, then why miss out on exploring that hypothesis?
Click to expand...

I think we've been exploring the heck out of that hypothesis on this board. Just from my contributions, you can find threads like Alzheimers' God, Jesus Of Ramathaim, and such. And of course, there are many others who did even more valuable contributions.

Trust me, there is no shortage of exploring divine hypotheses.

What we don't do is confuse hypothesis and fact. Exploring a hypothesis is not the same thing as believing whatever rationalizations you just pulled out of your own ass in the process.

Or in other words, we also explore topics like Star Wars, but that doesn't mean we start having faith in the Force. We explore topics like homoeopathy, but we don't start using tap water as a contraceptive. (Since diluted stuff has the opposite effect, lots of people wank in the shower, and some of that water goes into the aquifer and is eventually filtered and pumped back, now very very diluted.) We explore topics like communism, but we don't just start having faith that it's good and start emigrating to North Korea. Etc.

Exploring a topic rationally is not the same thing as just having dumb blind faith.

Democracy Simulator said:
Why does anyone believe anything is good, other than they have faith that it is?
Click to expand...

Rationally examine the consequences? Seems to me like a much more valid way to determine what's good and what's bad.

If good or bad were just a matter of having faith it is so, then there's no reason to say that, for example, murder is bad or vaccines are good. After all, it wouldn't be any better a guess than someone who chose to have faith the other way around.

Which is pretty silly.
 
tsig said:
God committed suicide for you?
Click to expand...

More like God had a gay bdsm exercise for you. He got tied to a cross and tortured and humiliated a bit, while knowing full well that he'll be ok on Sunday, and being in control all the time (by virtue of being an omnipotent God.)

That's neither sacrifice, nor even suicide. It's what some people actually pay a dominatrix to do to them. And if God felt more like playing with some muscular and sweaty guys in the uniforms of an oppressive empire, hey, I'm not gonna judge :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom