The absolute absurdity of God

[Crossless2.0]

Cute how you slip 'personal' into your list of characteristics a first cause must have.

[SteveII]

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.

I for one am grateful he decided to do it. It is only unjust if we did not all have a choice to respond to him. I would argue it would be entirely unjust not to create me because some atheist refuses to consider the greater reality around her and does not follow that observation to find out all she can to the best of her ability.

---

Cute how you slip 'personal' into your list of characteristics a first cause must have.

Has to be on the list. A decision is a thing only a person can make. A first cause must have within itself a mechanism to cause an effect that was not there from eternity past.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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.

Out of curiosity and with all due respect, is the above post more of a statement of faith/belief than a statement of reasoned fact?  In general, when making an apologetic argument, how does one ensure that he or she has minimized the biases of his or her faith to the greatest extent possible? Does one use sources and facts that are independent of one's faith (perhaps independent of religious faith all together) and free from its influence?

[The Grand Nudger]

False on it's face.  More decisions have been made by machines, today, than have been made by men.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

I for one am grateful he decided to do it. It is only unjust if we did not all have a choice to respond to him. I would argue it would be entirely unjust not to create me because some atheist refuses to consider the greater reality around her and does not follow that observation to find out all she can to the best of her ability.

---

Cute how you slip 'personal' into your list of characteristics a first cause must have.

Has to be on the list. A decision is a thing only a person can make. A first cause must have within itself a mechanism to cause an effect that was not there from eternity past.

Ok, a ‘mechanism’. Intentionality doesn’t necessarily follow.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

I for one am grateful he decided to do it.

Noted, but that doesn’t answer my question.  Why did god decide to create people?

It is only unjust if we did not all have a choice to respond to him. I would argue it would be entirely unjust not to create me because some atheist refuses to consider the greater reality around her and does not follow that observation to find out all she can to the best of her ability.

Atheists are certainly not the only group of folks who will end up in eternal hell, according to the narrative, Steve.

[SteveII]

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.

Out of curiosity and with all due respect, is the above post more of a statement of faith/belief than a statement of reasoned fact?  In general, when making an apologetic argument, how does one ensure that he or she has minimized the biases of his or her faith to the greatest extent possible? Does one use sources and facts that are independent of one's faith (perhaps independent of religious faith all together) and free from its influence?

I don't agree with your characterization of my statement. Yes, it has theological content. But I was defending a belief against a charge that it was not internally consistent. Internal consistency is very much about logic and reasoning. 

You can study all the conclusions of all the natural theology arguments to test whether your beliefs are consistent with formal arguments. You can engage arguments against Christianity like the Problem of Evil (PoE) and see what comes of it. 

Can you be free of all biases? Probably not. Religion is about faith, personal experiences, and believing the experiences of others. These all have subjective aspects to them. The challenge is the make sure you have a balance between objective and subjective reasons to believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one doubts that you have ample subjective reasons.  People point out that you have never described a single objective one.

[pocaracas]

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.

Space-time itself kinda checks all of those attributes...
Maybe a few of those have been added due to some anthropomorphism and maybe some are just plain wrong.... then, space-time can check all the required attributes.

Space-time is uncaused.... or rather can be uncaused, for all we know. We only have access to the space-time within our Universe... there might be much more of it outside.
Space-time can be beginningless. Even within our Universe, there is no preferred spatial coordinate. There seems to be a preferred temporal one, but maybe the space-time out of our Universe is beginningless.
Space-time is not changeless. It changes a bit in the presence of mass - that's general relativity for you.
Space-time is timeless. Things in space-time move with time and have a temporal coordinate. The space-time itself is not subject to its own coordinate system.
Space-time is immaterial.... for the most part. It does tend to generate particles, though...
Space-time is enormously powerful. It might be infinite and, in a few locations, it generates both negative and positive energy particles and these should be allowed to be as great or as small as they can be, given that the negative offsets the positive, so that, overall, everything remains neutral.
Space-time is not personal. I'd classify it as very impersonal. It just happens to have the capacity to generate persons, after a very long time of evolution of those particles that it generates.


An infinite space-time that very sparsely produces Universes where stars can form, planets, life... intelligent life...
Everything after the initial spark of particles in our Universe can be accounted for by physics. Anything prior needs some guesswork. But the known direction has been from a disordered state to a more ordered one, at the expense of greater disorder somewhere else - that's the second law of thermodynamics for you.
Inductively, this is as valid as your own argument... perhaps even more valid, as it presents itself as an extension to the known Universe, while your version presents an altogether separate thing.

[SteveII]

I for one am grateful he decided to do it.

Noted, but that doesn’t answer my question.  Why did god decide to create people?

I said this earlier: to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Need some Bible Reference? Check our Got Answers. I was going to pull a couple of sentences out, but it really is good to read the 5 short paragraphs in their entirety. It brings out several aspects. 

It is only unjust if we did not all have a choice to respond to him. I would argue it would be entirely unjust not to create me because some atheist refuses to consider the greater reality around her and does not follow that observation to find out all she can to the best of her ability.

Atheists are certainly not the only group of folks who will end up in eternal hell, according to the narrative, Steve.

I believe (with good reasons) that God judges people on their response to what he has made known to them. Will there be people from other religions in heaven? Yes, I believe so. Not because of their religion but because of their personal response to God and God will impart the atonement made by Jesus on them. On the other hand, there will be people in hell who called themselves Christians but did not respond to God in any meaningful way.