The problem is that god is initially described in terms of omniscience and omnipotence, and is still described by Christians of all flavors as being perfect. Yet, perfection does not want. It does not need. The very act of creation is one of taking action to fulfill some desire or need - to fill some missing part of itself. And as the OT goes on, we see a god that isn't just imperfect, but one that's incredibly inefficient in what he does. Putting aside the immorality of god's actions, the story of Lot highlights this.
He argues with a human.
He sends two subordinates in his place to discover what he should have already known.
Those subordinates don't even perform the task required of them, and judge the city based on the desires of the mob alone.
That's just idiotic.
I'm a programmer. A lot of my job is about being efficient and anticipating errors so that they either don't happen at all, or if they do, happen in a graceful way that doesn't nuke the rest of the program. God, this supposed super being, fails spectacularly on those fronts.
And, I know, I know... apologists like you will pull out the argument from ignorance card ("Well, how can you tell when your perception is so very limited compared to god's?"), but that's just it. If I, a lowly human can detect such wanton waste of effort and lives, then there's a problem. To go back to programming, good code is incredibly readable. It reads a lot like a good novel. It's clear, concise, and it flows logically. It's an emergent trait of doing it right. It would make sense that if god were any of the things apologists claimed he was, his actions, motivations, and what he requires of us would also be clear, even in the realm of symbolism and metaphor.
Instead, we get a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense. And when people like me complain about that, we're told we're simply not 'reading it right', or that we don't understand in a broader sense. Even though there are ~40,000 different ways of 'reading it right', and no two true believers agree on even the fundamentals (as we've seen here with Christians of various flavors trying to describe the triune god, hell, how god judges, etc.). That kind of unclarity necessarily stems from faulty source material. Just as good code is innately readable, nonsense is not.
And a logical god (not a perfect, or all-whatever, just logical) wouldn't be presented in such an ambiguous manner. It wouldn't need to be apologized for. It wouldn't need hordes of people clamoring to tell unbelievers the One True Way... which is different with each person who describes it. It would be clear to all, and above all else, naturally compelling.
He argues with a human.
He sends two subordinates in his place to discover what he should have already known.
Those subordinates don't even perform the task required of them, and judge the city based on the desires of the mob alone.
That's just idiotic.
I'm a programmer. A lot of my job is about being efficient and anticipating errors so that they either don't happen at all, or if they do, happen in a graceful way that doesn't nuke the rest of the program. God, this supposed super being, fails spectacularly on those fronts.
And, I know, I know... apologists like you will pull out the argument from ignorance card ("Well, how can you tell when your perception is so very limited compared to god's?"), but that's just it. If I, a lowly human can detect such wanton waste of effort and lives, then there's a problem. To go back to programming, good code is incredibly readable. It reads a lot like a good novel. It's clear, concise, and it flows logically. It's an emergent trait of doing it right. It would make sense that if god were any of the things apologists claimed he was, his actions, motivations, and what he requires of us would also be clear, even in the realm of symbolism and metaphor.
Instead, we get a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense. And when people like me complain about that, we're told we're simply not 'reading it right', or that we don't understand in a broader sense. Even though there are ~40,000 different ways of 'reading it right', and no two true believers agree on even the fundamentals (as we've seen here with Christians of various flavors trying to describe the triune god, hell, how god judges, etc.). That kind of unclarity necessarily stems from faulty source material. Just as good code is innately readable, nonsense is not.
And a logical god (not a perfect, or all-whatever, just logical) wouldn't be presented in such an ambiguous manner. It wouldn't need to be apologized for. It wouldn't need hordes of people clamoring to tell unbelievers the One True Way... which is different with each person who describes it. It would be clear to all, and above all else, naturally compelling.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
