Argument from evil, restated

[The Grand Nudger]

God is malevolent. = I am more righteous than God.

Righteousness doesn't enter in. There's no such thing. In any case I could be malevolent- and make this observation, but that would not make the observation inaccurate - or excuse a god for being malevolent

God's incompetent because doesn't save everyone. = I am the judge of who should be saved.

"God" is incompetent for reasons entirely unrelated to its' inability to "save" anyone. Nevertheless, whether or not I am the judge of who should be saved has no power to alter an observation of another's competence.

God's creation is flawed. = I have the expertise to evaluate God's performance.

Your god created nothing, but if you wish to claim it - then you'll have to own those flaws. It doesn't take too much in the way of heavy intellectual lifting to suggest what I offered up above, does it?

God created evil. = I have better moral judgement than God.

Whether or not I have better moral judgement than the character you call a god is irrelevant to the claim of what god did or did not create.

So you're wrong. Nearly every atheist objection to God, as God, assumes that the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than God.

Actually, these objections to a god show that the atheist arguer has thought it through just a tad bit more thoroughly than the apologist. There's no actual god involved.

[pocaracas]

Nearly every atheist objection to God, as God, assumes that the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than God.

I'm not very fond of making that kind of arguments, but, as I see them, they are attempts to show that "the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than" whoever made up your god's characteristics.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ah, the "you need to be perfect to judge God" angle. Here's the ringer: you don't need to be perfect - only reasonable.

I didn't say perfect. I think it is reasonable to question God. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three biblical examples: Abraham bargains with God to save the righteous in Sodom, Job challenges God's sovereignty, and Jesus pleads for His life. In each of these cases the questioning results in a fuller understanding and acceptance of God's will. Generally, that only happens when you question from a humble heart (Job being the exception, who's ignorance was forcefully dispelled). All the atheist objections I mentioned are presented with righteous indignation and defiance. To my mind, this approach isn't so much putting the question to God, as already having pronounced judgement on Him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indignation is an appropriate response to projected ignorance.

Defiance is an appropriate response to imposition.

Again, in each case, it isn't god being judged, but god claims. The claimant - at best- is being called into question. As usual, no gods involved.

[Raven]

Nobody in this thread has claimed they are wiser than God (yet).

Maybe not you specifically. It is a clear implication from certain atheist pronouncements like the following:

God is malevolent. = I am more righteous than God.

God's incompetent because doesn't save everyone. = I am the judge of who should be saved.

God's creation is flawed. = I have the expertise to evaluate God's performance.

God created evil. = I have better moral judgement than God.

So you're wrong. Nearly every atheist objection to God, as God, assumes that the atheist is smarter, wiser and more righteous than God.

I never made any claim to righteousness, I have no desire to decide on
who gets saved (no body is going to be, and saved from what, exactly?)
It doesn't take much to figure out that the silly fairy story of Adam and
Eve was a blatant case of entrapment, which certainly fits the OED
definition of malevolent. So does killing every living thing on the
planet cuz you're in a bad mood. And lots of other things. And what's the
deal with this blood sacrifice thing with the passion of the Christ?
That is more than just a little sick.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, in each case, it isn't god being judged, but god claims.

That's a total cop-out. If you make a statement, like "God is evil." then you are judging both a certain conception of god and the claim about god. If the god, as conceived, actually exists, then you are if fact pronouncing judgement on that God. For example, if I say, "That chair is stable because it has four legs," and you say, "No it's not stable. It has four legs but one is broken." then we are talking about both the chair and why it is or is not stable.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a total cop-out.

Hardly, what with no god being ponied up the only thing that such a statement can refer to is a claim. For it to refer to anything else, I'd have to either believe in a god - which I don't, or you'd have to provide said god - which you won't.

If you make a statement, like "God is evil." then you are judging both a certain conception of god and the claim about god.

A conception and a claim. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but "the idea is not the thing".

If the god, as conceived, actually exists, then you are if fact pronouncing judgement on that God.

....and until said god exists, it's just claims and conceptions.

For example, if I say, "That chair is stable because it has four legs," and you say, "No it's not stable. It has four legs but one is broken." then we are talking about both the chair and why it is or is not stable.

Presumably we can both point to the table in front of us..or is it a fairy table?

Nevertheless, whats wrong with making a judgement call about an existent god anyway? You'd hold a god to a standard at least commensurate with the standard you hold your fellow man to, wouldn't you?

[pocaracas]

Again, in each case, it isn't god being judged, but god claims.

That's a total cop-out. If you make a statement, like "God is evil." then you are judging both a certain conception of god and the claim about god. If the god, as conceived, actually exists, then you are if fact pronouncing judgement on that God. For example, if I say, "That chair is stable because it has four legs," and you say, "No it's not stable. It has four legs but one is broken." then we are talking about both the chair and why it is or is not stable.

When someone says "if god exists", then the judgement is on the claim of god's characteristics.
How else do we have access to those characteristics, if not by someone else's claims? Last I checked, the claims came in two forms: oral and/or written....
And in both I see the hand of man...

[Raven]

@ Chad - I can't put it any other way. You can think whatever you like. I put a lot of thought, a more than a little anguish into this whole business, and that is the only conclusion I can come to. And if he does exist, and if he's going to send me to hell for thinking the only thing I can think, then he is exactly what I said he is.

[Praetorian]

If the vocality of the conversation is any indicator, I'd say we've struck a nerve here, folks.

I'll just add that nobody is arguing with God, nobody is claiming to be wiser than God, we're arguing against the human interpretation of God, which is certainly fallible.

Until I can pick up a phone and call out God for these things myself, it's absolutely valid to look at these objections and conclude that it doesn't make sense to believe any of it.