The absolute absurdity of God

[LadyForCamus]

If god is the one judging and sentencing us, then Ofc it’s a test. Seems silly to try and argue otherwise.

---

Your mythology may not specifically state the the universe was created as a test, but there is no way around that is the end results.

We are put here with only 2 possible outcomes, according to Christian mythology: eternity in Heaven, or eternity in Hell (or eternal separation from Yahweh). And our choices will determine that outcome. And supposedly your god makes the decision on what our fate is by those decisions.

Sorry, but a test by any other name, is still a test.

No, sorry. Having different possible outcomes does not make something a 'test'. Otherwise nearly everything is a test and the word becomes meaningless. To support this silly premise, you need to show that there was no other purpose than a 'test'. Because there is clearly another purposes: to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Need some Bible Reference? Check our Got Answers. The fact there are two possible outcomes at the end of a life is a consequence of the system--not created by God--but essential to God. Our sins need to be atoned for to satisfy his Justice/Holiness to be in his presence. Atoned-for/not-atoned-for are the two options. No 'tests'. 

Again, if I am being judged by decisions I make, I am being tested. What else would you call it?

Judged by your decisions. Do you think when you appear in criminal court the judge declares "you failed your test!"

And by the way, why would this god create me, with a mind that would not be able to be convinced that he exists, with the evidence and arguments I am given to evaluate the proposition, knowing well in advance of these results, that I am will be condemned to hell?

Then it's his fault for his "divine hiddenness". How is it my fault for not being gullible enough to fall for fallacious arguments, lack of good evidence?

His knowledge of what you will freely choose does not transfer the burden. Perhaps the event that will lead you to believe has not happened yet. Unfortunately it may never happen. But creating the world and humans has a much higher net value than not. 

The test may not be the only purpose, but it is an unavoidable part of the deal. My decisions in life, determine my afterlife. If not a test, what is it?

---

Let me add, one of Oxford's definitions of the word "test",

An event or situation that reveals the strength or quality of someone or something by putting them under strain.

The "event or situation" in this scenario is life on Earth, what is being revealed is whether I "atone for my sins, accept Jesus as my savior", and the evaluator is Yahweh.

Please explain how our life on earth does not fit this definition of "test"...

Because it is a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.

Steve, 

If god is so just and holy, why would he go through with an imperfect creation that is inherently sinful, and unholy?  Why create us at all?

[SteveII]

The void surrounding God is, to me, representative of the lack of thought that actually goes into what the "other side" would be like. Our creator is always the sole thing in its reality (before making all this for no good reason), if it's even acknowledged that it has a reality to exist in. Anything else seems to spoil the story.

And I have to say: religious stories are the most absurd thing that a large proportion of adults take seriously.

No, "the lack of thought" is to say that God was surrounded by a void. That makes no sense. The correct understanding is that all that existed was God--an immaterial mind.

[Simon Moon]

No, "the lack of thought" is to say that God was surrounded by a void. That makes no sense. The correct understanding is that all that existed was God--an immaterial mind.

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

[SteveII]

If god is the one judging and sentencing us, then Ofc it’s a test.  Seems silly to try and argue otherwise.

---

No, sorry. Having different possible outcomes does not make something a 'test'. Otherwise nearly everything is a test and the word becomes meaningless. To support this silly premise, you need to show that there was no other purpose than a 'test'. Because there is clearly another purposes: to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Need some Bible Reference? Check our Got Answers. The fact there are two possible outcomes at the end of a life is a consequence of the system--not created by God--but essential to God. Our sins need to be atoned for to satisfy his Justice/Holiness to be in his presence. Atoned-for/not-atoned-for are the two options. No 'tests'. 


Judged by your decisions. Do you think when you appear in criminal court the judge declares "you failed your test!"


His knowledge of what you will freely choose does not transfer the burden. Perhaps the event that will lead you to believe has not happened yet. Unfortunately it may never happen. But creating the world and humans has a much higher net value than not. 


Because it is a secondary effect, not a primary purpose.

Steve, 

If god is so just and holy, why would he go through with an imperfect creation that is inherently sinful, and unholy?  Why create us at all?

It seems obvious (from reasoning) that any being with free will will choose imperfectly. A complete relationship requires free will. Other components of a maximally fulfilling life requires free will. If God wanted creatures that could have maximum fulfillment and relationships (including with him) then free will was necessary. And then we are back to free will inevitably leads to sin. 

In case anyone wants to bring up God having free will, he also has other characteristics--including omniscience and being necessarily the standard of goodness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Squirrel!

[LadyForCamus]

If god is the one judging and sentencing us, then Ofc it’s a test.  Seems silly to try and argue otherwise.

---

Steve, 

If god is so just and holy, why would he go through with an imperfect creation that is inherently sinful, and unholy?  Why create us at all?

It seems obvious (from reasoning) that any being with free will will choose imperfectly. A complete relationship requires free will. Other components of a maximally fulfilling life requires free will. If God wanted creatures that could have maximum fulfillment and relationships (including with him) then free will was necessary. And then we are back to free will inevitably leads to sin. 

In case anyone wants to bring up God having free will, he also has other characteristics--including omniscience and being necessarily the standard of goodness.

But why?  Are we the fruition of god’s desires?  If so, that’s pretty unjust for a supposedly perfectly just being, considering how many of us he knew before hand would end up in eternal hell.

[zebo-the-fat]

If a god made the universe (that is everything that exists) where was he before he did it?  (Heaven is not an answer because that must be part of "everything that exists")

Are you asking what material space did an immaterial being occupied? That question contains a logical contradiction.

Immaterial being sounds very much like non existent being to me

[robvalue]

Are you asking what material space did an immaterial being occupied? That question contains a logical contradiction.

Immaterial being sounds very much like non existent being to me

Yes, it's a contradiction in terms. Material means existent.

[SteveII]

No, "the lack of thought" is to say that God was surrounded by a void. That makes no sense. The correct understanding is that all that existed was God--an immaterial mind.

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

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. 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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Takes special time to lower the bar...... and still fails to clear it.