The God Paradox

Leumas said:
Now... if the creator made you able to be nourished by crude oil ... would that not be less of an I3D +schadenfreude than having to slaughter other living animals to be nourished???
Click to expand...


Because then my species would have died out before learning how to obtain a sufficient amount of crude oil.

Currently, of course, we're all nourished indirectly by crude oil, which is becoming a bit of a problem as supplies are beginning to run short. But fortunately there are other ways to be nourished, so the species will survive.

Are you really incapable of understanding that using petroleum is not the same as killing animals yourself??
Click to expand...


Using petroleum kills animals. I use it anyway.

Obtaining, processing, and transporting petroleum also kills animals. (Other people do that, but no, I don't think paying others to do things that kill animals is any different from killing animals myself.)

You keep talking about how unsatisfactory we should find the created world to be, if there were a creator. But all your examples propose alternatives that are just as bad or worse. Would it be nice if we could get our nourishment from the sun instead of from food? No, because that cannot provide enough nourishment to sustain high-metabolism brains. Wouldn't it be nice if we could eat crude oil? No, because crude oil is a limited and non-renewable resource. Wouldn't it be nice if there were no strife or suffering? No, because then we'd be p-zombies if we existed at all.

I can understand not liking the personas of the creator gods of popular modern religions. But it seems your complaint is more about the nature of the world. You can be an atheist if you don't want to contemplate gods you dislike, but I don't know what to suggest if it's the world you dislike.
 
Leumas said:
GDon said:
So: humanity has the ability to remove predators like lions and eagles from the wild. Should we do that? Would that make the universe a better place?
Click to expand...
Better place for whom or what? And no it would not.
Click to expand...
But doesn't having lions and eagles in the wild cause suffering? How can you be against the use of cockroaches in one example, but be for predators in the other? Would you say that the difference is whether these things provide a Greater Good (registered Theist Trademark)?

Leumas said:
But do you know what would make the universe a better place... removing humans...

If humans screw the eco system they will perish... but if they perish the eco system will not be harmed.... not at all... in fact it will benefit.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: I think we have some common ground there! Though I'd say that it isn't humans per se, but the number of humans and our inability to restrict our population. An Earth with a steady population of 8 million people instead of 8 billion could be a Paradise.
 
Leumas said:
Don't you think that the reality of human biology proves irrefutably that your deadbeat sky daddy is an imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I3D) or a sordid SADIST or both?
Click to expand...
Your fundamental mistake here is in thinking that it is my deadbeat sky daddy. I'm as much of an atheist as you are. I'm just not a dick about it.
 
Leumas said:
Evolution is a process in which things like "nasty sadistic pathetic bungling" have no meaning.

But for a designer those things have a meaning....

You are confusing the God concepts with natural processes.
Click to expand...


And yet, we're talking about the same world either way. We're looking at the results of a process, whether it's the results of natural forces and evolution or the results of a divine act of creation.

It makes no sense to accept strife and suffering if they're natural, but not if they result from actions or inactions of a deity. It makes no sense to say you enjoy living in the world as it is if it came about naturally, but you wouldn't if you thought it was created.

Again you are misunderstanding my point... it has nothing to do with preferring not to exist or not ... it has to do with preferring that their god concept not be a bungling imbecilic inept incompetent nasty sadistic designer.
Click to expand...


You are saying that you find the world so horrible that any putative designer or creator of it must be bungling imbecilic inept nasty and sadistic.

I assume, though, that you prefer to exist in it anyway, over the alternative of not doing so. (If that assumption is wrong, then you might be in need of some counseling.) That's the only paradox I see here.
 
Leumas said:
Chanakya said:
if just a wee bit belligerently expressed.
Click to expand...

In what way?? Please explain... thanks!!!
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? Are you trying to say that you don't realise how belligerent, argumentative and shouty you are being? That you're picking fights even with people who agree with you? You are without doubt one of the most belligerent posters on this board right now, and I count theist ex-members like The Big Dog in that list.

Here's an example. Psionl0 has never claimed to be a theist. On the contrary, based on our past interactions I would describe them as vehemently strong-agnostic. Yet you have claimed repeatedly that they believe in the god you have described, over and over again emphasising your god. Though this is absolutely untrue, you keep repeating it in order to maintain your argumentative nature.

You need to stop, calm down a little, stop shouting at everybody, and actually read the things that people are saying.
 
Leumas said:
No no... I do not mind ... I just would like it if you please can tell me exactly what parts you thought were belligerent and why???
Click to expand...
Certainly. Every time you bold part of your statement it looks like you are shouting at us. Every time you use multiple exclamation points!!! That's belligerent. And every time you pick an unnecessary fight with someone who fundamentally agrees with you.

Here's one really big example from the beginning of this thread. You used my posting history as an argument that I was lying when I said that I don't expend a great deal of mental energy on the question of whether any gods exist. Even after I very patiently explained that only a small proportion of my posts on this site and almost nothing else in my life were devoted to issues of religion and philosophy - let alone the specific question of whether a god exists or not - you jumped on me and shouted that I was making a "blatantly false statement". How is that not belligerent? How is that not picking an unnecessary fight? How is that not strawmanning my position?
 
The premise of this thread is rather shallow. Apparently, belligerence is supposed to make up for that.

Anyway. I’m not sure what the purpose of a “perfect” world is, from a putative god-creator’s perspective. If this entity created us, there must have been a purpose behind it. Maybe it’s a “scientist” and we are an “experiment.” Maybe there’s some higher metaphysical purpose to universal “suffering” that we can’t possibly fathom from our limited view. Whatever the purpose for creating us, I doubt there would be much purpose in making us perfect creatures who never suffer or cause the suffering of others.

I’m sure there are many possibilities and us humans haven’t even begun to set foot on the path to figure everything out -if there’s anything to figure out.

In any case, I’m pretty sure that creating creatures that have to consume other creatures and then poop out the waste products is pretty dang low on the “cosmic I3D” scale.
 
Getting away from the passing of feces* I have always been stunned by the inefficiency of the human body.

- The average daily requirement of energy intake for man is about 8,700 Kilo Joules (KJ).

- A Joule is the amount of energy required to push with a force of 1 Newton for a distance of 1 Metre.

- 8700 KJ therefore is pushing with a force of 8700 Newton for a distance of 1000 Metres.

- To lift a mass of 1 Kilogram(KG) takes a force of about 9.8 Newton (9.8 being the approximate value of G.)

- Therefore 8700 Newton is the force needed to lift 8700/9.8 = 887 KG.

- So 8700 KJ is equivalent to lifting a mass of 887 KG to a height of 1000 Metres or 8.87 Tonne a height of 100 Metres.

Isn't that an incredible amount of energy? When I first worked this out I though I had a decimal point out.

* Perhaps the "passing of feces" has a lot to do with this also as there may be a lot of energy still there.
 
Inefficient compared to what? I’d say humans -most of us anyway- are a good bargain as far as energy required and utility produced. Certainly not evidence of “God’s flawed design.”
 
Thor 2 said:
Getting away from the passing of feces* I have always been stunned by the inefficiency of the human body.

- The average daily requirement of energy intake for man is about 8,700 Kilo Joules (KJ).

- A Joule is the amount of energy required to push with a force of 1 Newton for a distance of 1 Metre.

- 8700 KJ therefore is pushing with a force of 8700 Newton for a distance of 1000 Metres.

- To lift a mass of 1 Kilogram(KG) takes a force of about 9.8 Newton (9.8 being the approximate value of G.)

- Therefore 8700 Newton is the force needed to lift 8700/9.8 = 887 KG.

- So 8700 KJ is equivalent to lifting a mass of 887 KG to a height of 1000 Metres or 8.87 Tonne a height of 100 Metres.

Isn't that an incredible amount of energy? When I first worked this out I though I had a decimal point out.

* Perhaps the "passing of feces" has a lot to do with this also as there may be a lot of energy still there.
Click to expand...


In terms of power, that averages to 100 Watts.

Has anyone designed any robots that are autonomous, self-propelled, can lift and carry 40-80 kilogams, climb, swim, learn from texts or by observation, self-thermoregulate, self-repair, organize efforts for tasks, and reproduce themselves, while operating on 100W? Or are all our designers incompetent, inept, and imbecilic?
 
Myriad said:
I assume, though, that you prefer to exist in it anyway, over the alternative of not doing so. (If that assumption is wrong, then you might be in need of some counseling.) That's the only paradox I see here.
Click to expand...

WOW... amazing...

But I thank you deeply for exposing the extent of emotions this OP has stirred...

I appreciate you letting me know it.🙏
 
arthwollipot said:
...
Here's one really big example from the beginning of this thread. You used my posting history as an argument that I was lying when I said that I don't expend a great deal of mental energy on the question of whether any gods exist. ...
Click to expand...


But I do appreciate all the energy you have spent on this OP so far telling me how pointless it is to waste time posting stuff against gods on a religion sub-forum of the skeptics forum.

The amount of energy you spent trying to dissuade me from spending energy posting on a religion sub-forum of the skeptics forum is really admirable.... and makes me understand how effective the OP is.

Thanks!!!!!
 
GDon said:
But doesn't having lions and eagles in the wild cause suffering? How can you be against the use of cockroaches in one example, but be for predators in the other? Would you say that the difference is whether these things provide a Greater Good (registered Theist Trademark)?
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the point of the OP... it is not suffering or nature... it is human created god concepts that are attributing the design of nature to this god concept.

Nature being what it is without a designer is FACT.

Nature being what it is with the deliberate design of a designer is a proof that the designer is an imbecile or a sadist.

And that is the point.... i.e. god concepts inevitably lead to a property of the god having properties that the conceptualizers would not like.... mainly being I3D + schadenfreude

Greater good is not exculpatory... all it shows is a constrained confined creator who has no choice but to deliberately create turpitude and has no other way of achieving this greater good than to make greater evil DELIBERATELY.

Which is not what the concept makers expected or want.

GDon said:
:thumbsup: I think we have some common ground there! Though I'd say that it isn't humans per se, but the number of humans and our inability to restrict our population. An Earth with a steady population of 8 million people instead of 8 billion could be a Paradise.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a movie called Logan's Run... they also made TV series out of it... the concept of the movie is something similar to what you propose... but... there is a catch.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
The amount of energy you spent trying to dissuade me from spending energy posting on a religion sub-forum of the skeptics forum is really admirable.... and makes me understand how effective the OP is.
Click to expand...
I haven't once tried to dissuade you. I have only said that I don't.

I originally asked why you do. A question to which I have not yet seen an answer, by the way.
 
Myriad said:
In terms of power, that averages to 100 Watts.

Has anyone designed any robots that are autonomous, self-propelled, can lift and carry 40-80 kilogams, climb, swim, learn from texts or by observation, self-thermoregulate, self-repair, organize efforts for tasks, and reproduce themselves, while operating on 100W? Or are all our designers incompetent, inept, and imbecilic?
Click to expand...


You're right about the 100 watts but that is a lot of energy in 24 hours.

I am just talking about energy here - all that other stuff is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom