The absolute absurdity of God

[Anomalocaris]

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?

All you say boils down to:

Is it right to asset god exists because you wish it?

[Angrboda]

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?

Since I'm not making an argument which depends on a defense of a specific PSR, it's not my problem. Coming from someone who in the past has used the existence of mathematical relationships like Pi to argue about necessary existence, I find your query most puzzling. Are you backing away from your seeming Platonism?

[SteveII]

Whoa. Why do you dwell on only the negatives of existence?

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not complaining about pain we experience during life. I’m saying that according to the narrative, god created living creatures with the capacity to suffer, having full knowledge that he would be condemning a great deal of these creatures to eternal suffering, not because they have caused suffering to their fellow creatures, but simply for having doubts about His existence.

You do not go to Hell because you have doubts. You go to Hell for rejecting whatever revelation he provides you. 

He executed this plan not because he had to; not because he needed us; but because he wanted to. That is narcissism of a monstrous order.  If any human treated another human, or even an animal in this way, society would label them at the very least apathetic to suffering, and at the very worst, a sociopath.

A narcissistic monster that came and died to so that you can choose to make things right--eternally? Your indignation seems to forget the effort that God makes to fix our problem. 

God does not need us.

Which makes his decision all the more horrific, and not in line with any being capable of experiencing empathy.

I think you are getting hung up on a misunderstanding of what it means to "Glorify God". Glorifying God involves having the fullest possible existence--which includes a relationship with him.Part of this is to understand the differences between an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God and ourselves (which is pretty much the opposite). This rightly results in an awe of God and a desire to worship him as a being worthy of worship.

I’m sorry, but none of the above clears anything up for me.  My understanding from the passages you provided, from what you have explained, and from the definition of the word, ‘glorify’, is that god made people so he could be praised and worshipped. I don’t see how an ego-driven lust for worship is moral justification for causing a feeling creature eternal suffering. I can’t even justify this idea as a “relationship” in the colloquial sense of the word.  What is the relationship between a man who tells another man or woman, ‘dedicate your entire being to me or I will torture you endlessly’?

We are not "pets". That is entirely too simplistic and shows a total lack of understanding the point which I am trying (imperfectly) to articulate.

I am definitely not understanding, I’m sorry.

I will expand my sentence from above: Glorifying God involves having the fullest possible existence--which includes a relationship with him. The 'fullest possible existence' also includes life's experiences as designed by God -- other relationships, love, art, natural beauty, knowledge, fulfillment, altruism, mercy, etc. The fruits of the Spirit come to mind: joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control--things that keep your mind healthy and balanced. Stop characterizing "glorifying god" as some result of a narcissistic demand for worship.  The word would have been 'worship' if that were the case. I can glorify God in my marriage, in my job, in my hobbies by living according to God precepts for those things and correctly recognizing them as God's design for a rich life. You can boil it down to things: precepts and a proper perspective.  

God knows exactly how many will reject whatever truth he has made know to them.

I know of no objective evidence, or reason that exists which would indicate any kind of “truth” having been shown to me. This whole idea of, ‘you’ve been shown the truth; you just don’t want to see it,’ seems to me an ad hoc hypothesis Christians have come up with to explain why some people remain unconvinced, despite the Bible asserting everyone gets a fair shake.

Well, you have enough information to go seek out the truth of Christianity. Probably not going to happen with from some random internet Christian. Perhaps God will bring someone in your life or you will seek it out yourself. I don't know. Hopefully you keep an open mind and respond when you are ready.  

It does not logically follow that no one should exist. At its root, this is an emotional response, not an argument.

My argument isn’t, “no one should exist.”  My argument is that god’s motives, actions, and reasons for his actions; in combination with his foreknowledge; are not in line with a loving, empathetic being who cares about the well-being of others.

For any such argument to succeed, you have to show that God created a system with a net-negative OR he could have done it differently with a better balance of negative/positive outcomes. In addition, you still have a wrong notion of God's motives. His motives really are for us to live the best possible life.  But again, "Glorifying God" mean following precepts and having a proper perspective about life. You are getting hung up on that part of that includes us recognizing our place in relation to his and offering him the worship he deserves.

When you strip away these things, you have an emotional response--not a logical response.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Since I'm not making an argument which depends on a defense of a specific PSR, it's not my problem.  Coming from someone who in the past has used the existence of mathematical relationships like Pi to argue about necessary existence, I find your query most puzzling.  Are you backing away from your seeming Platonism?

I'm primarily responding to SteveII. By asking the question, I am not taking a stance (yet) but reminding him that the larger issue of ontological status of non-physical entities is very much in play when talking about something like the PSR and the argument from contingency.

[SteveII]

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

Thanks.  I see that you referenced an argument from contingency. I'll post it below along with a few questions and comments that I had about it.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. (A) We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Regarding point 1, it would seem reasonable to treat this as an axiom in order to advance the argument.

Regarding point 2, would it be more accurate to say that if one is already a practitioner of a religious faith, then 2 follows?  This premise asserts that the explanation is god without addressing other possible explanations and reasoning out why these alternative explanations fall short.  Also, is god actually an explanation? What were the actual processes involved and how can they be broken down and explained? Given that this is a logical/intellectual exercise, then IMO, more elaboration and clarification is needed in order for "god" to qualify as an explanation. 

That said, it appears that such a statement would be more intuitive and natural for a religious audience and perhaps this is the type of audience that this argument is meant to sway?

A syllogism summarizes the premises/conclusions line by line. There have been tens of thousands of pages written in (2) alone. So, why do I think (2) is true? If the universe has an explanation, what sort of characteristics would the ultimate (to stop an infinite regression) explanation have? It seems that a Principle of Sufficient Reason is an objective feature of reality. 

I have pointed out in what you marked (A) what I think some of the characteristics an ultimate first cause would have to have. The only thing that answers to that list is some sort of eternal God. You are free to offer other first cause candidates--but you will have to invent and/or agree to extravagant metaphysical claims to get to something. Most smart atheists agree to consider the universe a brute fact and admit no explanation will be forthcoming (like Sam Harris). 

This argument is not proof--being a inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. You can always say "well, the science just hasn't figured it out yet". However, it is interesting that this argument get's stronger every decade because the science supports it better than say 100 years ago. Same with the fine-tuning argument--it gets better the more we understand. Since it is not proof, it most likely is not going to change anyone's mind. It will be suspect for atheists wondering why they can't defeat it, because...you know...science has proven religion wrong. It will be comfortable confirmation to religious people who want to make sure their worldview is rational. 

Regarding point 5, is this ultimately just another way of saying that the explanation of the universe’s existence is unknown?

Regarding point A, to what degree are humans projecting their characteristics, imagination, and incomplete understanding of the universe onto a first cause?

No, I think the premises are all sound and have no real defeaters. God is the most parsimonious explanation for everything. Again, you are welcome to propose a list of your own of what characteristics a first cause must have.

[Angrboda]

No, I think the premises are all sound and have no real defeaters. God is the most parsimonious explanation for everything. Again, you are welcome to propose a list of your own of what characteristics a first cause must have.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
— H.L. Mencken

Hopefully I'll get to my response to your earlier response later tonight. I apologize if there's any undue delay.

[SteveII]

Can a reality be imagined that does not have some sort of PSR? I think it has to be part of every coherent reality.

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?

I am not a platonist. I think all abstract object that are usually proposed as being real can ultimately be grounded in the mind of God. I think some sort of PSR is a characteristic of the mind of God and therefore an integral part of any reality the proceeds from God.

[Angrboda]

Taking it further do principles exist? Are they merely descriptive or somehow proscriptive?

I am not a platonist. I think all abstract object that are usually proposed as being real can ultimately be grounded in the mind of God. I think some sort of PSR is a characteristic of the mind of God and therefore an integral part of any reality the proceeds from God.

So, then, you're introducing circularity into your argument, no?

[SteveII]

I would like to read up on such models that don't require and physics and are separate from the universe. Sounds more like metaphysical musings. Do you have a link?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
""
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant).

[...]

The success of quantum fluctuation theories have given way to metaphysical interpretations on the nature of reality and their potential role in the origin and structure of the universe:

   The fluctuations are a manifestation of the innate uncertainty on the quantum level[5]
""

My understanding is that quantum mechanics governs the physical structure of the universe. Who's theory should I look up so I can understand the concept better? 

 
Biases? You mean like science, observation, experience, intuition? These are the things that your "possibility" lacks.

My possibility does go against your intuition.... but so does so much stuff around us that we take for granted...
Human experience has a very narrow applicability, unless aided by some mechanism.
Observation and science have advanced since those premises of yours were considered likely. It would be good to revise some of them.

Actually, the cosmological arguments and the teleological argument have gained ground in the last 50 years thanks to science. Before a hundred years ago, you would have been hardpressed to find a scientist to say the universe had a beginning--which is a necessary feature of the notion of God. Second, the information we now have on the incredible fine tuning of the initial constants was little understood 50 years ago. Now even atheists must agree that the initial conditions are suspiciously exact and the odds of that being by chance are not even realistic. So, rather than "revise" them, they have been "revived" thanks to science.

---

I am not a platonist. I think all abstract object that are usually proposed as being real can ultimately be grounded in the mind of God. I think some sort of PSR is a characteristic of the mind of God and therefore an integral part of any reality the proceeds from God.

So, then, you're introducing circularity into your argument, no?

No. The argument only relies on a PSR existing--not theories on why it might exist. We can take a principle as an axiom without knowing why it applies to reality only that it conforms to reality.

[zebo-the-fat]

If a god made the universe who or what made the god?

We don't know what started the universe, but "we don't know" does not mean "god did it" it just means we don't know (yet)