Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Tri-Omni
One of the reasons that I'm now an atheist is that I began really thinking about some of the things that I was taught in church over the years. I wasn't yet reading the Bible in full...my full reading came only after I started having doubts. I'd like to share now one of the first of my revelations I recall it.
I was taught that God (the Christian god for clarity) was an angry god a loving god and was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. It was the angry/omniscient/omnipotent that really got my attention. There's plenty of Old Testament evidence that Jehovah is an angry god. The Garden of Eden and The Flood are two pretty good examples. My problem with it came when I started thinking about how an omniscient god could get angry. If you know everything, nothing can surprise you.
How could god get mad at Adam and Eve when god knew that it was going to happen?! The same goes for the flood. He couldn't have been surprised that people weren't going to be worshiping him like he wanted. So either this god wasn't rational or he wasn't omniscient. I chose/choose to think the latter. What all knowing all powerful being wouldn't/couldn't also be rational? That leaves that god isn't omniscient...which logically leads to god not being omnipotent. You're not all powerful if you're not also all knowing!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Flight of Dragons.
Thameron's post on dragons comes form a book called The Flight of Dragons. Very cool book from the late '70s.
In any case, I've never been one to think the Problem of Evil is a major problem for theism. God might well exist, yet be malevolently disposed toward toward humans. Or there might be multiple gods, each exemplifying some human-like attribute, who are in constant conflict with each other and whose attempts to assert their control over the earth lead to human conflict and suffering.
-Bacopa
Problem of Evil
In a sense you're right. For random theism...But as Cat pointed out below, the problem of evil is more than if a god exists. It's if a god exists and is purported to be good or benevolent as is the Christian god.
Lol, Cat, using "ghosts" and
Lol, Cat, using "ghosts" and "logic" in a positive manner scares me.
Revenant
Why and Why not?
I never believed in god, unlike a great many of you my parents were both athiets, so the only thing I learned about god/Christ/Christianity was that missionaries were bad bad men who try to steal other people's land, that Christianity was full of contradictions and its priests are all hippocrites, and that a whole lot of ghosts hate Christ (OK, I didn't learn that last one from my parents, but logically if Christians kill people and people leave ghosts when they die and ghosts tend to hate the people they are killed by than there should be a lot of Christian/Christ hating ghosts, obviously this is subject to the questions of do ghosts exist and how do they act if they exist). On the other hand I am quite fond of asking "what if?" questions about mythological creatures (like the old question, if dragons did exist how would they fly/breath fire/would they have feathered wings, fleshy wings or something we don't know about?). Since god is a mythological creature that leaves him/her/it completely open to such thought experiments.
So, questions this raises are can an omniscient god get angry? Can an immortal being become attached to a mortal one or even a race of mortal beings? The emotional nature of humans is in part biochemical, so if one assumes that god has no body (which I would conclude is a negative unless you want to be difficult and say god's body is made of dark matter that is just out of phase with our reality or some innane idea like that) the chances of god being emotional are slim. For the question of "could an omniscient entity feel emotions?" if you assume that whatever physiology a god possesses is just as capable of feeling emotions as human physiology I'd say, yes, but the emotions probably wouldn't be as strong as those of a non-omniscient entity, just as you can feel sad when a dog or cat dies even though you know it is inevitable that they will, the knowledge of their fate does not make it any less sad, it simply increases your ability to cope with it (otherwise, why do humans make such a big deal out of dying? It is inevitable so they might as well shut up and get use to it). Can an omniscient god be surprised? If you assume that the immediate future is simply a continuation of the conditions at the present and the movement of the immediate past than it is logical to conclude that an omniscient god could not be surprised because he/she/it would always know what was about to happen. This of course brings up the question, if a god is omniscient and omnipotent and that god forsaw something bad happening would this god stop it? One could argue that if god is good than yes, god would stop it. I would argue with a line from Castlevania "For God to be good there must also be evil in the world." Now, if god is good only when there is evil does that mean that god is the proverbial father, who people flock around because no matter how many times that father may get drunk and beat his family there are far more dangerous things outside the house than inside, or does it mean that god created something beyond its control (evil in this case) for the express purpose of allowing there to be free will. If the former is the case, than is god really good? if the latter than god is not truely omnipotent because it cannot control evil (and if god is omnipotent and by extension does control evil, than does that make god evil?). I suppose that depends on what "evil" is, Christians seem to define it as something that goes against god (yet if god controls evil and evil goes against god... does evil truely exist at all?), other people seem to define it as "something that harms humanity", and yet others view it as "something which disrupts the balance of nature". I'm more or less in the camp that believes evil doesn't exist but is only a tool that people use to make it easier to dislike/hate things and makes it easier to classify/pigeonhole things.
You've probably seen this
You've probably seen this before, but if not you might like it:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Epicurus
Humans can make mistakes. By definition, God cannot. So humans can do at least one thing that God cannot. Who's omnipotent now?
exactly
That's pretty cool. It's one of those little musings that shows the logical failing of any system where gods are omnipotent and good.
Why call him God? Well if, hypothetically, there were paranormal creatures and these creatures interacted with humans on a regular basis, they would be able to do many things that humans can't do and so would be more powerful than humans. Powerful enough that the resident humans would suck up to them and call them gods, reguardless of whether they were all powerful or not. I mean look at Jesus, all he is credited with doing is changing water into wine, bringing some dude back from the dead, healing people, walking on water and rising into the sky with all the lights and stuff. Hardly earth shattering stuff yet it made him a god.
Flight of dragons
Dragons fly through the use of several features some of which are familiar such as hollow bones (like birds), but the most important feature of all are the several hydrogen filled bladders spaced throughout there bodies. These allow a buoyancy unequalled elsewhere in creatures of their size and configuration. It is this hydrogen ignited in air through either a biophysical or biochemical method which allows them to breath fire. Naturally they need to replenish their hydrogen flight bladders afterward in order to fly. This might take some time depending on how much hydrogen they used, which is why they are reluctant to use the fire breatrh unless hard pressed, rather like skunks. The presence of these bladders naturally makes them particularly vulnerable to arrows (not to mention bullets), which is why they avoid people like the plague and why we don't generally see them. I believe the wings are fleshy and unfeathered. Most depictions of dragons fail to note the membrane on the tail, rather like the tail of a fish, which enables greater maneuverability in the air.
I've heard of that too
Through the movie. And some dragons (wyrvens and Quetzalcoatl come most redilly to mind) are depicted with feathers, although Quetzalcoatl is technically a god and Wyrvens, being quadropedal are not always considdered true dragons (especially by dragon fanciers who considder that true dragons have four legs and a pair of wings, with Chinese dragons having lost their wings due to living in water). I suppose it depends on whether you thing dragons decend from dinosaurs (in which case they might have feathers like birds, or like might have none like dinosaurs) or whether they decended from a different reptilian liniage (such as pterasaurs). Depictions of Chinese dragons show tufts of something that could be fur, feathers or perhaps modified scales, the pictures are not clear enough to make the distinction.
Speculation
Excellent, Thameron.
Thanks
For the record the idea did not originate with me, but it is still a good one.
Ermmm
Exactly. I think..probably...
Unless I'm crazy this is nearly the exact same line of thought (in long form) as the rest of my post...at least kind of.
Omnibenevolence
You missed omnibenevolence.
--
"Ponies are atheists, you know, technically."
- Me
I agree with plittle
I think it's also important, anytime you ask such questions, to go ahead and draw the conclusions:
You say a god exists with the following attributes (...).
Those attributes are mutually contradictory.
THEREFORE, the god you describe cannot exist.
Anytime you question "God," draw a conclusion. Anytime you mention Adam and Eve, make the point that they never existed, that there never was any Garden of Eden. Anytime you mention The Flood, point out that it never happened.
Because from the other side, you can be sure that anytime they interject themselves into the breach, you can be sure there's gonna be a gleeful screech near the end: "I KNOW GOD EXISTS!!"
Wise Old Saying I Just Made Up: Real Atheists Follow Through.
The Very Essence
Rick,
I think you nailed the very crux (no pun intended) of it.
It doesn’t make sense for an omniscient entity to display the emotions you describe. It does however; make perfect sense for a human to display those emotions (jealousy, surprise, anger, etc.).
This begs the question: Who created whom in whose own image (yes, that was difficult to write)?
Thanks
Thanks mt! That's exactly what intended to show.
and
And to reply to my own reply...I would argue that it doesn't beg the question. The conclusion is clear. The Christian "god" is (to take an Australian phrase) chok'o'block of human attributes, most importantly (since they're biblical), anger and jealousy.
Foundations of belief
It isn't people's reason which leads them to believe in god, it's there emotions and you cannot argue with people's emotions.
The xians themselves
The xians themselves contradict this all the time. Whenever something bad happens, it's not because god willed it, but because of free will.
Which means that free will can make us go AGAINST the plan they say god has for us, which means free will is more powerful than god, which means that god is not all powerful.
Which also begs the question: Can god make a force more powerful than himself?
Of course, free will can't exist with an all knowing being.
Not rational? Not
Not rational? Not omniscient? Not omnipotent? I skipped all those and went straight to "Not there."