The logical consequences of omnipotence

[John V]

If the christian god wanted souls to make him company, why didn't it just create those souls right there with him, with all the required adoration built-in?
Or did it just not feel like doing it the easy way?

Maybe he didn't want to be on an eternal first date.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe that one goes on the list of shit that god is not capable of doing. Problem solved. Just imagine how many nagging little questions could be answered in such a way.

[John V]

Or maybe that one goes on the list of shit that god is not capable of doing. Problem solved. Just imagine how many nagging little questions could be answered in such a way.

Sure, or we could actually think them through. Oops, never mind, forgot where I was for a second! Time for someone to post a funny picture with something mocking god typed on it.

[pocaracas]

If the christian god wanted souls to make him company, why didn't it just create those souls right there with him, with all the required adoration built-in?
Or did it just not feel like doing it the easy way?

Maybe he didn't want to be on an eternal first date.

What's the difference between eternity and (eternity + a human lifetime on Earth)?

[The Grand Nudger]

What is there to think through John? When you "think it through", does your mind actually wander to a first date scenario? I 'm not really sure that I'm ready to paint a deity as the sort of thing that would spend it's time worrying about the sorts of things a human teenager might. Know what I mean? It seems that if we're going to propose some deity - that things are the way they are because said deity was not capable of laying it down another way. Sure, we could imagine all sorts of things, all sorts of powers or abilities, but simply assuming some sort of deity we aren't left with any reason to assume it was capable of anything more than what we see. Unless we want to inject a little fantasy.

Handle that for me?

[John V]

What is there to think through John? When you "think it through", does your mind actually wander to a first date scenario?

It has, yes. I wasn't just typing randomly.

We all have attributes which some other people do not find appealing. These attributes aren't necessarily faults (although in people they can be).

We typically suppress these things on a first date. If we continue to see the other person, we gradually let ourselves be more fully known. As this continues, we reassess each other and one party usually breaks it off at some point.

If we suppress certain aspects of ourselves, the pool of people we can successfully interact with is relatively large. As we let ourselves be known more deeply, the pool shrinks. There are more first dates than tenth dates, more tenth dates than weddings, more weddings than 25th anniversaries.

However, there is a trade-off. If we suppress, than the relationship is superficial - we have a wide but shallow pool. As we open up, there are fewer takers, but the relationship is deeper.

BTW, this applies to friendships as well, not just romantic relationships.

Neither approach is right or wrong. Some people like having many friends or serial short-term relationships. Nothing wrong with that.

Now apply this to God. For instance, the Bible says god is jealous. Some people don't like that. He is judgmental. Some people don't like that (or at least claim they don't).

Could God have abvoided showing his jealousy? I suppose so. He could have prevented the snake from being in the garden. He could prevent people from liking anything better than they like him.

Could he have avoided showing that he's judgmental? I suppose so. He can apparently keep people from sinning in the next life, so he could do so here as well.

So, we only know about certain parts of god that no-one can take offense to.

As I said, it's an eternal first date.

God could have chosen that. He didn't. He chose fewer, deeper relationships over many superficial ones.

I 'm not really sure that I'm ready to paint a deity as the sort of thing that would spend it's time worrying about the sorts of things a human teenager might. Know what I mean? It seems that if we're going to propose some deity - that things are the way they are because said deity was not capable of laying it down another way. Sure, we could imagine all sorts of things, all sorts of powers or abilities, but simply assuming some sort of deity we aren't left with any reason to assume it was capable of anything more than what we see. Unless we want to inject a little fantasy.

Handle that for me?

It's not "simply assuming," it's analyzing and discussing.

[Surtr]

So, we only know about certain parts of god that no-one can take offense to.

I can't take offense when he kills 70,000 people because David wanted a census? I can't take offense when he destroyed 60 cities to make room for the Jews? I can't take offense when he orders us to burn entire cities because one nonbeliever is present? I can't take offense when he allows slavery and rape?

I think you underestimate his jealousy.

[The Grand Nudger]

It has, yes. I wasn't just typing randomly.

We all have attributes which some other people do not find appealing. These attributes aren't necessarily faults (although in people they can be).

We typically suppress these things on a first date. If we continue to see the other person, we gradually let ourselves be more fully known. As this continues, we reassess each other and one party usually breaks it off at some point.

If we suppress certain aspects of ourselves, the pool of people we can successfully interact with is relatively large. As we let ourselves be known more deeply, the pool shrinks. There are more first dates than tenth dates, more tenth dates than weddings, more weddings than 25th anniversaries.

However, there is a trade-off. If we suppress, than the relationship is superficial - we have a wide but shallow pool. As we open up, there are fewer takers, but the relationship is deeper.

BTW, this applies to friendships as well, not just romantic relationships.

Neither approach is right or wrong. Some people like having many friends or serial short-term relationships. Nothing wrong with that.

Now apply this to God. For instance, the Bible says god is jealous. Some people don't like that. He is judgmental. Some people don't like that (or at least claim they don't).

Okay, np, applied to a god. It has attributes which can be faults.

Could God have abvoided showing his jealousy? I suppose so. He could have prevented the snake from being in the garden. He could prevent people from liking anything better than they like him.

Could he have avoided showing that he's judgmental? I suppose so. He can apparently keep people from sinning in the next life, so he could do so here as well.

Could a god have done this? Says who?

So, we only know about certain parts of god that no-one can take offense to.

As I said, it's an eternal first date.

What parts are those, those that no one can take offense to?

God could have chosen that. He didn't. He chose fewer, deeper relationships over many superficial ones.

LOL, I think it's more likely that your imagining what -you- might do as a god that could do anything. I see no reason to assume or conclude any of this, I'm going to try to keep my shit together at the notion of having a "deep relationship" with a fairy. Sorry bud.

It's not "simply assuming," it's analyzing and discussing.

Really, because I didn't see much of anything at all up there but assumptions. How much of that did you expect to float?

[killybob]

Now apply this to God. For instance, the Bible says god is jealous. Some people don't like that. He is judgmental. Some people don't like that (or at least claim they don't).

Actually, NOBODY in their right mind would find jealousy attractive, and nobody likes to put up with judgemental people, at least not on the same level that God's jealousy and judgemental-ism runs at.
Besides, there is no context in which being jealous and judgemental can be considered a good thing, and neither have ever been considered virtues amongst reasonable folk.
Also, I love the was God often scolds people in the bible (especially in the new testament) for being both jealous and judgemental but, you know, being the proud hypocrite that he is, just so happens to be both of those things, and take both the ideas to the extreme. Well done God, you asshole.

[John V]

I can't take offense when he kills 70,000 people because David wanted a census? I can't take offense when he destroyed 60 cities to make room for the Jews? I can't take offense when he orders us to burn entire cities because one nonbeliever is present? I can't take offense when he allows slavery and rape?

I think you underestimate his jealousy.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. That was a hypothetical.

---

Okay, np, applied to a god. It has attributes which can be faults.

Can be, yes, but are not necessarily faults. Judges are judgmental, and jealousy can be merited.

Could a god have done this? Says who?

Many atheists charge that God hypothetically should have done those things, so they apparently believe a god hypothetically could have done those things.

What parts are those, those that no one can take offense to?

Love, kindness, etc.

LOL, I think it's more likely that your imagining what -you- might do as a god that could do anything. I see no reason to assume or conclude any of this, I'm going to try to keep my shit together at the notion of having a "deep relationship" with a fairy. Sorry bud.

Actually it came from pondering this passage:
Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?