If god were real...

[Baalzebutt]

:aside:


I live in Colorado and I have two friends who sell guns at auction. The new laws are affecting one of them to the degree that he will no longer be able to sell guns. For the other, the amount of work involved may not be worth the money and may shut him down as well.

[CleanShavenJesus]

God did not create satan, He created the angel of angels, the top ranked angel, who was called Lucifer. Lucifer made himself into satan, scripture tells us this, period. You have a son, you train him up to be a good citizen, you've done a good job. Then your son takes a turn, by his own decision he becomes a murderer, it's your fault even though you raised him contrary to what he has become, isn't this what you are saying.

You literally wrote in the exact same post as the one this quote is from that God knew that Lucifer would become evil. STOP USING THAT ANALOGY. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS SITUATION. PLEASE.

God didn't "raise him contrary to what he became", God raised him well-knowing that the angel would be evil regardless. And in your analogy, if a father knows his son is evil and will probably murder someone, he should do something about it. Your analogy is false. Stop using the same one.

[Tonus]

I'm not so sure its a "punishment/reward" system.

I understand what you're saying, but there is a punishment and a reward. And they're quite extreme, and I am confident that most theists find it to be a fair system. When I was a believer, my beliefs were that loyalty would be rewarded with life in heaven or on an Earth transformed into a paradise world, and that disloyalty was punished by death. No eternal suffering or after-life of any kind, just non-existence. This seemed fair to me. But there's no question that the reward was incredibly tantalizing. Why offer something so incredibly desirable if it wasn't the point of the whole exercise?

To put it another way-- let's pretend that there is no difference in the final outcome for people. Let's pretend that god says "it is sufficient that I created you and gave you life; this alone is reason for you to follow my guidelines and worship me in the manner I describe. Therefore, whether you do or not, you will all eventually die and cease to exist." Many people would consider that a fair proposition. But would everyone who serves god today continue to do so under those circumstances, or would many of them turn away from god if they felt it was to their personal gain? And can god identify those people now, and will he punish them because they would have been disloyal without a reward? Or is the effort sufficient?

[Tex]

God is responsible for evil if a parent is responsible for all acts of their child within a reasonable scope of knowledge. All couples have children knowing there will be issues, therefore parents are responsible to the extent of their knowledge. They may not be responsible for murder, but they'd be responsible for for most of the little evils. All those evils fall on the parents.

That is not how morality works. If the kid is bad because the parents don't discipline, then it's more their fault, but if the kid gets into a fight at school, you shouldn't put mom and dad on trial for battery.

[The Grand Nudger]

God is responsible for evil if a parent is responsible for all acts of their child within a reasonable scope of knowledge.

They are, they're also responsible for a great many things that they may not have knowledge of.

All couples have children knowing there will be issues, therefore parents are responsible to the extent of their knowledge. They may not be responsible for murder, but they'd be responsible for for most of the little evils. All those evils fall on the parents.

They are responsible for a murder - if it falls within the extent of their knowledge. Their portion of the responsibility is not as great as the part owned by the kid who draws the knife - as it were- but they are still responsible.

That is not how morality works. If the kid is bad because the parents don't discipline, then it's more their fault, but if the kid gets into a fight at school, you shouldn't put mom and dad on trial for battery.

Well, agreed, that's how it pans out legally. But I have to ask, are you really prepared to demonstrate "how morality works" - because if you aren't - that's a pretty hollow statement. We don't put mom and dad on trial for battery - they didn't do any beating. We do take them to civil court with the receipts for our child's stitches in hand.

Truth be told, I like these little analogies - because even if we couldn't conceive of "putting god on trial in a criminal court" (which honestly, we very easily can) he'd still be on the hook for massive reparations in a civil court. All the arguments against this amount to insisting that a god be treated in a way that is inferior to a human being, that it be granted exceptions, lesser standards. Not that we aren't willing to do that, children, the mentally challenged, the demonstrably insane etc.
(I could make a defense for god on any of those counts- granted)

---

I just can't help it, I have to jot down a rough draft. Lets call it, "sympathy for god".

Firstly, I'd like to start by pointing out that god was isolated in eternity - potentially for eternity - at least an incomprehensible amount of time. We understand the effects of isolation on ourselves after a paltry few weeks or months - the effects of an isolation so complete and vast are possibly beyond measure. When we consider the account of the actions of god - we are presented with an appalling resume (more on this later), one that is difficult to square with the notion of a mentally competent person who simply "commits crime". We have found human beings to be incompetent for far-far less - with demonstrable regularity. Now, a clever prosecutor might point to moments of lucidity - such as creation of all that is - but the defense would merely like to remind the jury that moments of surprising lucidity are entirely common amongst the insane.

Secondly, there was no other show in town. God - being isolated - had no one to crib from. It would be no stretch to compare gods understanding of the principles required to convict him as that of a child. Not just any child, but an immeasurably powerful child, capable of inflicting incredible harm. In this light the resume above becomes much more substantial, much easier to comprehend. We have no reason to expect this god to have a more developed understanding of these principles - and judging only from what is espoused by god in his commandments along the periphery of those principles the case is quite thoroughly made.

Thirdly, it is unclear to me, and I hope to establish the same to you, that god is capable of understanding it's own nature, abilities, or the consequences of its actions in part or in full. In short, that god is severely mentally challenged. What concept of "events" or "cause" or "consequence" would a timeless being possess? What frame of reference could it use to determine the meaning of these things? Has god, or could god, ever explain it's abilities? Clearly, god has been "doing things" but whether or not god understood what it was doing - well, I don't see anything that would suggest this. Now some might point to gods oft touted omniscience - the claims made by others, and potentially by god itself that it possesses this attribute. Can we really trust this claim? Grandiose claims of ones abilities aren't exactly surprising from the insane - or from the minds of children. On the other hand, the claims of others about this god are difficult to substantiate.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I do not intend to absolve god of it;s culpability in these things entirely. I'd simply like to establish that criminal proceedings would not be appropriate. How we might contain god in a psychiatric ward is a mystery - but that's where I would argue that god belongs. As to civil proceedings, well, as far as I'm aware - god has no assets. It is claimed that gods primary residence is a palace in the sky, but seeing as how this palace is immaterial it's a mystery as to how a court would appropriate it as damages. One might point to the churches of the world - but since our laws don't have a "sins of the father" statute - I'm afraid that this won't work. In this case, there would seem to be no justice, just us.

Kind of a tragic figure really, blundering along trying to figure shit out for the very first time - possibly with good intentions- lashing out in frustration - creating everything, destroying it because it wasn't satisfied, the creatures created don't work as intended.....apparently just "lookin for love"........really, really heartwrenching stuff, in a twisted sort of way. I'd go so far as to call god a hair shy of a decent anti-hero.

[archangle]

So, another thread got me to thinking about this:

If god were real, how would you expect him to act? What would you expect him to do?

Here is what I posted in the other thread:

I expect nothing less from your god than your god expects from me.

God commands "Thou shall not kill" and then turns around and orders genocide. He says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and then condones slavery and the selling of daughters. He does shitty things to good people and still expects to be worshipped and praised.

Until your god starts walking the walk and not being a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of god, he can fuck off. He is certainly not worthy of worship or praise of any kind, even if he wasn't a fairy tale.

So what are your thoughts?

I think you are just like them. Its all about you.

Why can't god be god?
maybe he can't help every single person?
maybe, people have to die?

Just like blood cells in you. You can't help them, but you can, to the best of your ability.

I think, and I agree with you, that we reject their type of god.

I am ok with the ten commandments actually. It aint about me, it is about us. That's what I get out of them. They are as good a set of rules as any other.

[The Grand Nudger]

They are as good a set of rules as any other.

Are they now? One would wonder why we found it prudent to develop so many more if this were the case. 3 address blasphemy, 2 refer to thoughtcrime, 1 lays out an arbitrary "holy day", leaving 4 that might be marginally useful - if only it was explained why we should follow them-.



I don't know, 4 "rules" with no elaboration doesn't seem to hold up against the entirety of our modern system of law.