The God Paradox

[Leumas]

Indeed.

I stopped wondering if there was a God when I got kicked out of Sunday School at about age 10 for asking awkward questions (questions that the Sunday School teacher couldn't answer). This set me on the path to unbelief and I reached the end of that path as a teenager.

I am now an Atheist in the narrowest sense - a "hard" atheist- I don't just disbelieve that gods exist, I reject the idea that any deities exist at all.

EXACTLY!!!

But the apologists and soft-atheists keep saying that you cannot disprove god ... and this is what this OP is about... disproving any god concepts that humanity has imagined.

But by disprove I do not mean not exist... I mean prove that if there is a creator then he is a turpitude by the mere facts of reality as we have it.

And of course ... this is not what any theist wants to know.

 

[Chanakya]

Every time I sit on the dunny to unburden myself, I contemplate the issue of God and gods… and by the time I am finished cleaning away the remnants, I am yet again irrefragably convinced that the whole delusion is a failure of human reasoning and a testament to our inability to fathom the extent of turpitude that any such creator would ineluctably have to have, given that it created reality the way it is.

God concepts + reality ==> Paradoxical conclusions ==> either reality is a delusion or God concepts are false... but... if reality is a delusion then so are any god concepts... ergo... god concepts are a falsity... QED!!!​

The mere fact that we need to kill things and ingest them to be able to perpetuate our desultory existence as creatures, is a testament to either… the utter inept incompetent imbecility of this creator (I³D)… or … if it intended it this way… abject villainy of this tinkerer and sordid SADISM of this execrable intentional creator of misery and suffering.

But it gets even more wicked; if indeed there is an Imbecilic Designer (I³D), then we were designed biologically incomplete — we cannot biologically internally auto-manufacture all the necessary amino acids needed for our existence (we are biologically less complete than bacteria) — consequently, we need to devour the cells of other creatures instead of, say, sunbathing for a few hours a day while just mouthing handfuls of clay. Thus, we have to kill other creatures (fauna and flora) and rob them of their amino acids and cellular materials to complete the manufacturing of our own cells.

But the grotesque schadenfreude does not end here… our digestive systems are not even close to being efficient, therefore a big percentage of the butchered creatures we ingest just pass through our tracts inefficiently utilized and go to waste… hence our killing sprees have to be carried out more frequently than would have otherwise been necessary.

This of course results in all sorts of strife and misery and mayhem as a result of our continuous strive for procuring more and more cells, bloodily wrenched off of their original owners. But even more egregiously, we often have to splatter the cells of other humans while competing with them for control over the sources of cells to ravish (whether for consumption or coition).

But the appalling depravity does not end there… the waste matter that results from our interminable thievery of other creatures’ cells, KILLS US by resulting in all sorts of internal diseases and failures of the digestive system itself. Furthermore, the waste matter eventually percolating through the water systems and habitations results in external diseases and plagues and all but endless suffering and torment.

So as you can see, on the stage of reality, the mere act of sitting on the loo and the denouement of having to scrape clean our derrières, ought to compel any rational thinker to conclude that any god delusion is something that humanity has pulled out of their malodorous orifices. And just as more often than not, all those mangled remains of creatures passing through our anuses result in damaging our orifices, so have the god fecal matter damaged the collective anus called humanity.

"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't." ― Jules Renard

This is not to deflect in any way from your criticism of the God idea, or at any rate the tri-omni God idea, because I think your criticism is bang on, if just a wee bit belligerently expressed. But here's a take on the theodicy question that came to mind as I read your OP, that, as far as I can remember I haven't seen or heard elsewhere, so I thought I'd put it down here:

I remember an interview I'd once read of some writer of pulp-ish detective fiction ---- was it Lee Child? don't rememeber exactly, but could be ---- where he said, jokingly obviously, that he's a bit sorry about the undending troubles he, the author, keeps visiting on his protagonist; and that should he ever happen to somehow come face to face with his badass protagonist, then it probably wouldn't end well for him (for the author, that is).

So well, much like we create these computer games and stuff, or even simply these books and movies and stuff, if somehow --- without worrying too much for now about the "how" in the "somehow" --- our created characters got imbued with consciousness, then they'd find themselves in a universe that is not very friendly, and in your usual computer games it would end up being a universe that is downright vile. And we, their creator God, might actually be very kind and peaceable and non-violent, and yet be instrumental in creating something utterly vile and violent and hateful.

So that, one answer to the theodicy problem, one possible permuation, might have to do with consciousness emerging by itself, and not deliberately engineered by the Creator.

Of course, that does not tick the tri-omni box really, because a Creator that is clueless about the emergence of consciousness in his creation, is hardly omniscient, at least as far as this question of consciousness. But still, this might give you one explanation how a Creator that isn't a raging sadistic psychotic might have created this "red in tooth and claw" universe of ours.


-----


Like I said, this is not to deflect from your criticism itself. In any case what I suggest does not even address the rest of psychotic things that God's shown doing in the Bible, at all. Just, a random thought about the theodicy question that happened to come to mind as I read your OP, that I thought I'd just put out there.

 

[psionl0]

I am asking about YOUR god...

No, you are asking about YOUR god - the "imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I3D) or a sordid SADIST or both" entity that you created (and quote mined the bible to justify its existence).

Nobody has said that I actually have a god and it is irrelevant to the discussion of your creation.

 

[Myriad]

If I may summarize the OP argument: "Life sucks, therefore a creator who created that life must also suck."

To respond:

Natural abiogenesis and all the laws of nature underlying it are presumably excused from any moral responsibility for the prevailing suckitude, because they're not sentient and don't know any better.

Would a world where all the solar energy that reaches the ground is simply radiated immediately back into space, without organisms to intercept and collect and squabble over it, be somehow preferable? Or perhaps one just like ours except all organisms including ourselves were p-zombies, biological automatons with no awareness and therefore no suffering over such things as eating, being eaten, and pooping?

I don't agree that either of those would be preferable. (I don't think the latter is actually possible, but that's another topic.) I hold the contrary position that what exists and what I experience are better than nothing. (A bold claim in a nihilistic era, I'll grant you.)

Therefore if it could be shown that a deity is responsible for world as it exists instead of nothing, or for me existing instead of not existing, I would express to that deity some gratitude for that improvement, despite complaints (my own and others') that it could conceivably be better. Maybe that's just me. When I'm a dinner guest I say thanks for the meal, not that it would have been so much better with less salt.

It appears that the notion of gods or God as perfect beings with perfect plans is a relatively recent one in human history. That notion necessitates some reconciliation with the perceived shortcomings of reality. (Christianity: the imperfect world is a punishment for humans' transgressions; Buddhism: the imperfect world is an illusion holding us back from an unseen perfect one; Islam: the world is perfect if you like violence and pain as much as the prophet (PBUH) commands you to; Judaism: eh, who says the Lord is perfect, He just does the best He can with us schlubs.) The ancient pantheons had no such pretenses.

 

[Chanakya]

No, you are asking about YOUR god - the "imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I3D) or a sordid SADIST or both" entity that you created (and quote mined the bible to justify its existence).

Nobody has said that I actually have a god and it is irrelevant to the discussion of your creation.

psion10, while I agree that your personal beliefs are irrelevant to Leumas's OP; but still, I've had discussions around and about things like this with you in the past in another thread started by you, where it had seemed to me that you were desperately trying to twist and turn your way out of admitting things that were plain as day. This is not to revisit that thread in any way, not at all: but since both in this thread as well as in the other thread about who's more more evil, God or Satan, you keep pointing out that you don't believe in this kind of God, or that kind of God, and so on:

Well, given the above, it might help us understand where you're coming from exactly if you could directly and simply and clearly just tell us what exactly your own position and belief is about the God question. Do you believe in some God, and if so what God? Do you subscribe to some religion? One or two short and clearly-worded sentences should be enough to spell that out clearly.

No no, I do realize, like I said already, that this does not relate directly to the OP or this thread, absolutely. Just an invitation to you to clearly state your position here, if you'd like to. (And I've clearly explained why I'm asking, why I'm interested. No issues at all if you don't want to accept this invitation to discuss your personal belief/position, obviously, there's no reason at all why you should do this if you don't want to.)

 

[Leumas]

This is not to deflect in any way from your criticism of the God idea, or at any rate the tri-omni God idea, because I think your criticism is bang on, if just a wee bit belligerently expressed. But here's a take on the theodicy question that came to mind as I read your OP, that, as far as I can remember I haven't seen or heard elsewhere, so I thought I'd put it down here:

I remember an interview I'd once read of some writer of pulp-ish detective fiction ---- was it Lee Child? don't rememeber exactly, but could be ---- where he said, jokingly obviously, that he's a bit sorry about the undending troubles he, the author, keeps visiting on his protagonist; and that should he ever happen to somehow come face to face with his badass protagonist, then it probably wouldn't end well for him (for the author, that is).

So well, much like we create these computer games and stuff, or even simply these books and movies and stuff, if somehow --- without worrying too much for now about the "how" in the "somehow" --- our created characters got imbued with consciousness, then they'd find themselves in a universe that is not very friendly, and in your usual computer games it would end up being a universe that is downright vile. And we, their creator God, might actually be very kind and peaceable and non-violent, and yet be instrumental in creating something utterly vile and violent and hateful.

So that, one answer to the theodicy problem, one possible permuation, might have to do with consciousness emerging by itself, and not deliberately engineered by the Creator.

Of course, that does not tick the tri-omni box really, because a Creator that is clueless about the emergence of consciousness in his creation, is hardly omniscient, at least as far as this question of consciousness. But still, this might give you one explanation how a Creator that isn't a raging sadistic psychotic might have created this "red in tooth and claw" universe of ours.

-----

Like I said, this is not to deflect from your criticism itself. In any case what I suggest does not even address the rest of psychotic things that God's shown doing in the Bible, at all. Just, a random thought about the theodicy question that happened to come to mind as I read your OP, that I thought I'd just put out there.

My OP is not about any particular god... it is about ANY god CONCEPT that is attributed with having created humans.... it does not even have to have tri-omni... just one attribute... it created humans.... the rest could be anything anyone can imagine.

And it is not about theodicy... it is about the resultant system emanating out of the design constraints this creator created.

This god-concept who is the creator is INELUCTABLY a turpitude or an imbecile.

It is a turpitude if it deliberately created reality as it is.... or if it just bungled it up then it is a bungling imbecile because it did not fix it or start over again with a better system.

Computer games are the creation of humans with all what that entails... so are fictive literature.... and the target audience of this art is humans.... with all what that entails.... in self-projection and the need to stimulate and amuse.

So if this creator god created REALITY for his species to be entertained by the results... ah well... but that still makes it a turpitude... just like we think of the creators of porn and other smut (at least the actors in porn chose to be there... humans did not choose to exist)... and just like theists and conservatives think of video games and their creators.

...
So that, one answer to the theodicy problem, one possible permuation, might have to do with consciousness emerging by itself, and not deliberately engineered by the Creator.

Of course, that does not tick the tri-omni box really, because a Creator that is clueless about the emergence of consciousness in his creation, is hardly omniscient, at least as far as this question of consciousness. But still, this might give you one explanation how a Creator that isn't a raging sadistic psychotic might have created this "red in tooth and claw" universe of ours.

Well... I did say he is tinkerer and imbecilic designer.... right???

Also ... before consciousness emerged there was THE BIOLOGY that required to kill and eat and excrete and suffer the consequences of the INEFFICIENT systems and badly designed mechanisms.... no??

So no... consciousness is not an excuse for why this creator created things that needed to kill other things in order to perpetuate themselves and to do so with inefficiency and consequences that result in their own eventual demise no matter what... have to kill and eat and suffer because of it... or be killed and eaten and suffer because of it... long before consciousness may have inadvertently evaded this designer of this hideous sordid system.

if just a wee bit belligerently expressed.

In what way?? Please explain... thanks!!!

 

[sackett]

Oh? Really?

Indeed.

I stopped wondering if there was a God when I got kicked out of Sunday School at about age 10 for asking awkward questions (questions that the Sunday School teacher couldn't answer). This set me on the path to unbelief and I reached the end of that path as a teenager.

I am now an Atheist in the narrowest sense - a "hard" atheist- I don't just disbelieve that gods exist, I reject the idea that any deities exist at all.

Next you'll be telling us you don't go to the toilet!

 

[Leumas]

If I may summarize the OP argument: "Life sucks, therefore a creator who created that life must also suck."

Not at all... you missed the point entirely...

the point is

...I am yet again irrefragably convinced that the whole delusion is a failure of human reasoning and a testament to our inability to fathom the extent of turpitude that any such creator would ineluctably have to have, given that it created reality the way it is.

God concepts + reality ==> Paradoxical conclusions ==> either reality is a delusion or God concepts are false... but... if reality is a delusion then so are any god concepts... ergo... god concepts are a falsity... QED!!!​

...

 

[Leumas]

...To respond:

Natural abiogenesis and all the laws of nature underlying it are presumably excused from any moral responsibility for the prevailing suckitude, because they're not sentient and don't know any better.

are they God concepts???

God concepts + reality ==> Paradoxical conclusions ==> either reality is a delusion or God concepts are false... but... if reality is a delusion then so are any god concepts... ergo... god concepts are a falsity... QED!!!​

...
Therefore if it could be shown that a deity is responsible for world as it exists instead of nothing, or for me existing instead of not existing, I would express to that deity some gratitude for that improvement, despite complaints (my own and others') that it could conceivably be better. Maybe that's just me. When I'm a dinner guest I say thanks for the meal, not that it would have been so much better with less salt.

what would you say if your were the meal???

It appears that the notion of gods or God as perfect beings with perfect plans is a relatively recent one in human history. ....

Nope... think of a car and an engineer... nothing to do with gods or perfection... just engineering...

Don't you think that an engineer who designs a car that requires the blood and flesh of cockroaches to function is a cruel sordid monster??

Do you think the engineer who designs a car that can run on Solar Energy is a better and less grotesque a designer than the aforementioned one???

Which car do you prefer to buy and run??

 

[Leumas]

If I may summarize the OP argument....

Some of the ubiquitous theists' arguments:

1. Watch maker + Look at the trees (i.e. Intelligent Design)
2. Prime Mover
3. Necessary cause
4. Love

My OP shreds those arguments.... I call it I³D + schadenfreude

 

[Leumas]

No, you are asking about YOUR god

I am an atheist... a staunchly sure and assured one... there are no gods and I have no god.

YOU DO...

Nobody has said that I actually have a god and it is irrelevant to the discussion of your creation.

This statement is abject perfidy as is evident to anyone who can reason!!!

Now... will you ever stop evading and tell us if you think your god created humanity or not???

Besides... whether you have or have not a god... you should be able to opine on the statement....

Don't you think that the reality of human biology proves irrefutably that the necessary cause of it and prime mover of it is an imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I³D) or a sordid SADIST or both??​

If you are an atheist or agnostic you can opine on the above ... if you are an honest theist... you can also do so... why can't you do so???

 

[psionl0]

psion10, while I agree that your personal beliefs are irrelevant to Leumas's OP; but still, I've had discussions around and about things like this with you in the past in another thread started by you, where it had seemed to me that you were desperately trying to twist and turn your way out of admitting things that were plain as day. This is not to revisit that thread in any way, not at all: but since both in this thread as well as in the other thread about who's more more evil, God or Satan, you keep pointing out that you don't believe in this kind of God, or that kind of God, and so on:

Well, given the above, it might help us understand where you're coming from exactly if you could directly and simply and clearly just tell us what exactly your own position and belief is about the God question. Do you believe in some God, and if so what God? Do you subscribe to some religion? One or two short and clearly-worded sentences should be enough to spell that out clearly.

No no, I do realize, like I said already, that this does not relate directly to the OP or this thread, absolutely. Just an invitation to you to clearly state your position here, if you'd like to. (And I've clearly explained why I'm asking, why I'm interested. No issues at all if you don't want to accept this invitation to discuss your personal belief/position, obviously, there's no reason at all why you should do this if you don't want to.)

I am not going to state a belief in this matter. It is just a trappy question designed to deflect from the question posed by the OP (not saying that this is necessarily your motive).

If I say that I am an atheist then I am just trolling.

If I say that I am agnostic then I am misusing the word.

If I say anything else then I am a hypocrite.

This thread and the other thread is about a very specific type of Abrahamic God who is purely cruel and evil and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Some may not like me pointing this out but that doesn't justify making either thread about my personal beliefs instead.

 

[Leumas]

Should we get rid of lions in the wild, in your opinion? Why should there be lions in the wild in the first place?

I posed some questions to you earlier... can you please answer... I would love to know what you would answer.... thanks

Don't you think that an engineer who designs a car that requires the blood and flesh of cockroaches to function is a cruel sordid monster??

Do you think the engineer who designs a car that can run on Solar Energy is a better and less grotesque a designer than the aforementioned one???

Which car do you prefer to buy and run???

 

[Leumas]

This thread and the other thread is about a very specific type of Abrahamic God who is purely cruel and evil and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Some may not like me pointing this out but that doesn't justify making either thread about my personal beliefs instead.

You very clearly have not read this thread at all... I suggest you read it... your statement is risibly an abject and transparent misrepresentation.

I am not going to state a belief in this matter. It is just a trappy question designed to deflect from the question posed by the OP (not saying that this is necessarily your motive).

If I say that I am an atheist then I am just trolling.

If I say that I am agnostic then I am misusing the word.

If I say anything else then I am a hypocrite.

Surprise surprise...


Besides... whether you have or have not a god... you should be able to opine on the statement....

Don't you think that the reality of human biology proves irrefutably that the necessary cause of it and prime mover of it is an imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I³D) or a sordid SADIST or both??​

If you are an atheist or agnostic you can opine on the above ... if you are an honest theist... you can also do so... why can't you do so???

 

[Wudang]

Don't you think that the reality of human biology proves irrefutably that the necessary cause of it and prime mover of it is an imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I³D) or a sordid SADIST or both??​

If you are an atheist or agnostic you can opine on the above ... if you are an honest theist... you can also do so... why can't you do so???

Well the esophagus settled the incompetent bit for me.

 

[Chanakya]

My OP is not about any particular god... it is about ANY god CONCEPT that is attributed with having created humans.... it does not even have to have tri-omni... just one attribute... it created humans.... the rest could be anything anyone can imagine.

And it is not about theodicy... it is about the resultant system emanating out of the design constraints this creator created.

This god-concept who is the creator is INELUCTABLY a turpitude or an imbecile.

It is a turpitude if it deliberately created reality as it is.... or if it just bungled it up then it is a bungling imbecile because it did not fix it or start over again with a better system.

Computer games are the creation of humans with all what that entails... so are fictive literature.... and the target audience of this art is humans.... with all what that entails.... in self-projection and the need to stimulate and amuse.

So if this creator god created REALITY for his species to be entertained by the results... ah well... but that still makes it a turpitude... just like we think of the creators of porn and other smut (at least the actors in porn chose to be there... humans did not choose to exist)... and just like theists and conservatives think of video games and their creators.




Well... I did say he is tinkerer and imbecilic designer.... right???

Also ... before consciousness emerged there was THE BIOLOGY that required to kill and eat and excrete and suffer the consequences of the INEFFICIENT systems and badly designed mechanisms.... no??

So no... consciousness is not an excuse for why this creator created things that needed to kill other things in order to perpetuate themselves and to do so with inefficiency and consequences that result in their own eventual demise no matter what... have to kill and eat and suffer because of it... or be killed and eaten and suffer because of it... long before consciousness may have inadvertently evaded this designer of this hideous sordid system.

No, I appreciate all of the above. My point was, if God had created a narrative, like a video game or a novel or movie or something, or maybe a simulation, but not intending to imbue the contents of it --- us --- with consciousness, well then no matter how gory the set-up, that's hardly evil, since there's no consciousness anywhere, right? Like a novelist writing a violent novel is not therefore an evil person, because he did not actually intend conscious creatures to suffer. So that, if consciousness emerged in this universe unbeknownst to and unintended by the Creator, well then that might give you a non-sadistic non-psychotic Creator, despite the undeniable sufferings and misery that this world is unarguably made up for, for all life forms.

Short point: No consciousness, no suffering, right?

Anyhoo. Not to make too much of a thing of it, just a random thought I put down. I don't intend this as a defense of God or anything.

In what way?? Please explain... thanks!!!

Ah well, it is just a bit, isn't it? Not that I mind in the least. Throw as much of it at the God-botherers as you like; and while I tend to be kind of low on the belligerence thing myself, generally, but in a good cause like this and given the correct opening I'll be happy to join in myself!

 

[Chanakya]

I am not going to state a belief in this matter. It is just a trappy question designed to deflect from the question posed by the OP (not saying that this is necessarily your motive).

If I say that I am an atheist then I am just trolling.

If I say that I am agnostic then I am misusing the word.

If I say anything else then I am a hypocrite.

This thread and the other thread is about a very specific type of Abrahamic God who is purely cruel and evil and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Some may not like me pointing this out but that doesn't justify making either thread about my personal beliefs instead.

Fair enough, psion10. Absolutely, you've no call to, if you don't want to. No issues, cheers.

 

[psionl0]

Besides... whether you have or have not a god... you should be able to opine on the statement....

Don't you think that the reality of human biology proves irrefutably that the necessary cause of it and prime mover of it is an imbecilic inept incompetent designer (I³D) or a sordid SADIST or both??​

If you want to approach this from a purely logical perspective (and in the absence of biblical nonsense) then a partial perspective is as follows:

If God is to create people who are more than just bots then he needs to give them "free will". This means that not only must they have the capability of making evil choices but they must be able to make those choices knowing that negative consequences (including death) would follow. This is known as "The Logical Problem of Evil".

I can't give a more complete answer than this because I am philosophically limited.

 

[Myriad]

what would you say if your were the meal???

Probably something like, "ouch!"

Nope... think of a car and an engineer... nothing to do with gods or perfection... just engineering...

Don't you think that an engineer who designs a car that requires the blood and flesh of cockroaches to function is a cruel sordid monster??

The first time you mentioned this I thought maybe you were just being ironic, but now I have to ask... what do you think fossil fuels come from?

Not exclusively cockroach flesh, of course, but there's certainly some of that in there. (Cockroaches have been around a long time.)

So, do you use fossil fuels? If so, is such use an absolute necessity for your survival? Are you a cruel sordid monster? Are the engineers who designed internal combustion engine vehicles, gas stoves, gas- or coal-fired power plants, etc. cruel sordid monsters?

Do you think the engineer who designs a car that can run on Solar Energy is a better and less grotesque a designer than the aforementioned one???

Which car do you prefer to buy and run??

That depends. Are the lithium, rare earth metals, structural metals etc. needed to build and operate the solar energy powered car sustainably sourced from mines and factories that pay fair wages and don't cause environmental damage that kills animals? If so, then I can't afford that car. If not, then what's so morally superior? It makes just as much sense to use the cockroaches, which we kill on purpose in vast numbers anyhow without even using their flesh or blood for anything.

 

[Myriad]

You nibbled around the edges of my previous post in three different responses, but veered away from the main point.

Would a world where all the solar energy that reaches the ground is simply radiated immediately back into space, without organisms to intercept and collect and squabble over it, be somehow preferable? Or perhaps one just like ours except all organisms including ourselves were p-zombies, biological automatons with no awareness and therefore no suffering over such things as eating, being eaten, and pooping?

I don't agree that either of those would be preferable. (I don't think the latter is actually possible, but that's another topic.) I hold the contrary position that what exists and what I experience are better than nothing. (A bold claim in a nihilistic era, I'll grant you.)

Therefore if it could be shown that a deity is responsible for world as it exists instead of nothing, or for me existing instead of not existing, I would express to that deity some gratitude for that improvement, despite complaints (my own and others') that it could conceivably be better.