So, in K_K's thought process, it is not our place to question god. This is because it is just wrong to do so. Presumably, the reason it is wrong to do so is either one of the following, or a corollary/derivative of the same:
1) God is perfect, and we are not, therefore his plan is ineffable to us
2) God is so much more intelligent than us, therefore his plan is ineffable to us
3) This universe is god's creation, so perfection or intelligence aside, we do not have the "right" to question his plan
Now, let's take a moment to address these points. The same applies, reasonably, to any corollaries/derivatives.
1) We only know that god is perfect because he has said so. Ignoring the fact that the only place god has declared his perfection is in a book penned by perfectly fallible human beings, we are basically enjoined by the religious, at this juncture, to accept the rather famously pointed-out circular logic that: God says he is perfect; he wrote the bible that declares his perfection; the bible was written by god, so it must be perfect; and therefore, since the bible says god is perfect, he must be.
I think that there is a critical bit of circuitry that exists in the brains of agnostics/atheists that people of a religious persuasion must lack. I try to follow the above logic, and my brain returns a coding error. Infinite loops just don't work.
On to point
2) This particular try is a boldfaced attempt by religious apologists to avoid the circular logic of the "perfect god, ineffable plan" variety in point 1 above. They've been lambasted on that one so many times that the more intelligent of them decided to use a new approach, and it happens to be one that appeals to the average person on a personal level. Allow me to explain...
The average person finds themselves completely baffled by things that those of higher intelligence understand. Take, for example, the basics of quantum mechanics and probability waves. There are scientists for whom the idea is perfectly simple and elegant. To the average person, though, their mind simply can't get around it. For a lower-level example, take a person of significantly less-than-average intelligence. That person understands that an engine makes a car go, but they likely do not comprehend HOW the engine works, and likely would not even if it was explained.
That is where we sit in the eyes of the religious. For all our achievements, for all our advances, the combined intellect of the human race is no more significant in the face of god's unfathomable intellect than is that of a fly.
Unfortunately, they are left with absolutely zero evidence to defend this claim. Quite to the contrary, many examples can be made of actions taken by god that seem to defy the idea of an advanced intellect at work.
As others in this thread have stated, surely a being, possessed of an incomparable intellect and enough power to manifest an entire UNIVERSE, could come up with solutions better than purposefully causing suffering?
The analogy was recently made to humans not understanding the suffering caused by god, to an infant not understanding the suffering caused by his parents' act of taking him to a doctor for a painful vaccination. The religious would, and do, say that god causes such suffering to better us, in ways we cannot comprehend.
Would not that doctor, though, administer the vaccination in a painless way if he could? Would not the parents insist on such a painless treatment if it were not available?
As others here before me have posited, surely a being more intelligent than we could ever comprehend, more powerful than anything we could ever create, has better tools in his kit than simple suffering?
Now, let's move on to point
3) This point is barely worth delving in to. To say that we have no right to question god simply because this universe is his creation, WE are his creation, is idiotic in the extreme. If some brilliant human mind were to devise a way to create an entirely new life from the ground up, a new being possessed of sentience, and then decided that he should torture and eventually kill his new creation, an outcry would pour out from the whole of humanity. The simple act of creating something does not give the creator infinite and unquestionable rights over his creation.
Should a corporation, upon building a new town and allowing tenants to occupy it, be allowed to destroy it on a whim?
The answer is obvious.
I apologize for reiterating points so similar to those made by others, points made so many times in the past, but I suppose I felt that I needed to get my two cents in. Or whatever monetary value you might apply to the near-essay I just posted.
I also apologize for this being overly long and verbose, but that's just the way I write. It tends to be why I do not write posts very often.
~~ Random
1) God is perfect, and we are not, therefore his plan is ineffable to us
2) God is so much more intelligent than us, therefore his plan is ineffable to us
3) This universe is god's creation, so perfection or intelligence aside, we do not have the "right" to question his plan
Now, let's take a moment to address these points. The same applies, reasonably, to any corollaries/derivatives.
1) We only know that god is perfect because he has said so. Ignoring the fact that the only place god has declared his perfection is in a book penned by perfectly fallible human beings, we are basically enjoined by the religious, at this juncture, to accept the rather famously pointed-out circular logic that: God says he is perfect; he wrote the bible that declares his perfection; the bible was written by god, so it must be perfect; and therefore, since the bible says god is perfect, he must be.
I think that there is a critical bit of circuitry that exists in the brains of agnostics/atheists that people of a religious persuasion must lack. I try to follow the above logic, and my brain returns a coding error. Infinite loops just don't work.
On to point
2) This particular try is a boldfaced attempt by religious apologists to avoid the circular logic of the "perfect god, ineffable plan" variety in point 1 above. They've been lambasted on that one so many times that the more intelligent of them decided to use a new approach, and it happens to be one that appeals to the average person on a personal level. Allow me to explain...
The average person finds themselves completely baffled by things that those of higher intelligence understand. Take, for example, the basics of quantum mechanics and probability waves. There are scientists for whom the idea is perfectly simple and elegant. To the average person, though, their mind simply can't get around it. For a lower-level example, take a person of significantly less-than-average intelligence. That person understands that an engine makes a car go, but they likely do not comprehend HOW the engine works, and likely would not even if it was explained.
That is where we sit in the eyes of the religious. For all our achievements, for all our advances, the combined intellect of the human race is no more significant in the face of god's unfathomable intellect than is that of a fly.
Unfortunately, they are left with absolutely zero evidence to defend this claim. Quite to the contrary, many examples can be made of actions taken by god that seem to defy the idea of an advanced intellect at work.
As others in this thread have stated, surely a being, possessed of an incomparable intellect and enough power to manifest an entire UNIVERSE, could come up with solutions better than purposefully causing suffering?
The analogy was recently made to humans not understanding the suffering caused by god, to an infant not understanding the suffering caused by his parents' act of taking him to a doctor for a painful vaccination. The religious would, and do, say that god causes such suffering to better us, in ways we cannot comprehend.
Would not that doctor, though, administer the vaccination in a painless way if he could? Would not the parents insist on such a painless treatment if it were not available?
As others here before me have posited, surely a being more intelligent than we could ever comprehend, more powerful than anything we could ever create, has better tools in his kit than simple suffering?
Now, let's move on to point
3) This point is barely worth delving in to. To say that we have no right to question god simply because this universe is his creation, WE are his creation, is idiotic in the extreme. If some brilliant human mind were to devise a way to create an entirely new life from the ground up, a new being possessed of sentience, and then decided that he should torture and eventually kill his new creation, an outcry would pour out from the whole of humanity. The simple act of creating something does not give the creator infinite and unquestionable rights over his creation.
Should a corporation, upon building a new town and allowing tenants to occupy it, be allowed to destroy it on a whim?
The answer is obvious.
I apologize for reiterating points so similar to those made by others, points made so many times in the past, but I suppose I felt that I needed to get my two cents in. Or whatever monetary value you might apply to the near-essay I just posted.
I also apologize for this being overly long and verbose, but that's just the way I write. It tends to be why I do not write posts very often.
~~ Random
Last edited:
