The absolute absurdity of God

[vulcanlogician]

OP:

"As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self—created; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honor. Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together."

--Baruch Spinoza

[LadyForCamus]

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

Look, it’s not lost on me that if we’re having a discussion about the internal consistency of Christian doctrine, I, as a non-Christian, am obligated to play by those rules. I understand that if it’s true that the reason people go to hell is because they have rejected something god has plainly offered them, then god’s actions can be morally justified.

But, I’m asking you to think outside the box of your religion, and consider this scenario objectively for one second. Is it sincerely your position that the most probable reason someone like me is an atheist, is because I have rejected some profound revelation of truth that was waved under my nose? That that explaination is more likely than the notion that I simply don’t find the evidence compelling? Are you willing to consider these options as the critically thinking individual you have demonstrated yourself to be, rather than just regurgitate what the Bible tells you to think?  Because, as I said previously, as an open-minded outsider looking in, ‘the ones who don’t believe just didn’t want to believe’, reeks of an ad hoc explaination; one Christians use to excuse the actions of their god, and dismiss the billions of human souls they believe will suffer eternally, without a nagging conscience keeping them up at night.

Further, such explanation is a blanket straw-man that you and your book commit every single time you talk to a fellow human on the subject, to the degree that it can’t be a genuine discussion. If I tell you that I, Michelle, have wanted to believe in god for a long time; that when my belief was crumbling years ago, I prayed for any sign; any dangling rope to hold on to; and your response to me is, ‘according to my book you just didn’t want it bad enough’, then you’re not actually talking to me. You’re shutting down dialogue with a fallacy. Imagine how quickly you’d take me down, Steve, if I said, “you don’t really believe in god. You’re just holding on to a comforting fantasy, and deep down you know it isn’t true.”  I get that you are starting at, “my book is true”, but then why bother engaging with people at all if you aren’t going to accept the reasons they give you?  In that case, what you’re doing boils down to preaching.

A narcissistic monster that came and died to so that you can choose to make things right-

Who knew, before doing any of that, how many billions of his creatures would not get the message, and what he would have to do to them after the fact. And he did it anyway. For himself. To serve his personal desires. But, since all those souls like mine don’t really want god’s gift in the first place, I guess that makes it okay.  

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.

 
Dictionary definiton time:

Glorify:

1. To praise and worship.

2. To describe or represent as admirable, especially unjustifiably.

I don’t see ‘fullest possible existence’, ‘relationships’, ‘fruits of the spirit’, ‘loving art’, or ‘mercy’ anywhere.

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. 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.

He could have done nothing at all.  Also, why does god deserve worship?  I thought it wasn’t about worship?  You said: 

The word would have been ‘worship’ if that were the case.

Does god want be worshipped?  Does he ask to be?

[SteveII]

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. (1)

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. 


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. (2)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.  I'd like to clarify that I'm asking questions and /or seeking clarification on the ideas/thoughts that you have posted here.  My intent is not to debate or to engage in other forms of win-lose competitions. 


That said, regarding (1), is it possible that the principle of sufficient reason (everything has a cause or reason) is just a result of the human mind attempting to make reality conform to its observations, perceptions, thought processes, etc.?  In the pursuit of objective truth, how often do humans end up projecting their own meaning onto that truth?  

Regarding (2), as previously mentioned, is it possible that the concept of a "first cause" is just the human mind projecting itself onto reality, rather than the human mind actually trying to objectively interpret reality as it is?

1. No, I think we derive a PSR from every observation that ever was with no exception. Why would we doubt those observations? If we are going to go that far down the hyper-skepticism path, then your stance becomes that we can know nothing. Do you have examples of where humans universally projected their own meaning on something? This argument avoids any personal projection of truth by referring to axioms like the PSR, the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-Contradiction. 
2. Related to (1), I think the human mind (collectively) is capable of working out fundamental features of reality. You don't have to have any biases to engage the argument. The inductive nature does not demand the conclusion is true--but even atheists have to concede that a first cause is a real problem for a purely naturalistic worldview. Isn't it special pleading when you encounter a problem your worldview can't deal with to say "well maybe we are projecting our thought onto reality"--when in literally every other area of science (and life) we act like we can navigate through it?

[Angrboda]

2. Related to (1), I think the human mind (collectively) is capable of working out fundamental features of reality. You don't have to have any biases to engage the argument. The inductive nature does not demand the conclusion is true--but even atheists have to concede that a first cause is a real problem for a purely naturalistic worldview. Isn't it special pleading when you encounter a problem your worldview can't deal with to say "well maybe we are projecting our thought onto reality"--when in literally every other area of science (and life) we act like we can navigate through it?

Pretty sure that's not a valid description.

[robvalue]

I've never had any revelation. I've just had people talking drivel about books of fairy stories. Even if God did communicate with me, I'm not going to worship him. It's an absurd proposition from both sides. I'll have a sensible conversation, if he's interested. If not, too bad.

If God wants to torture me for not being a sycophant, that's on him.

[KevinM1]

I've never had any revelation. I've just had people talking drivel about books of fairy stories. Even if God did communicate with me, I'm not going to worship him. It's an absurd proposition from both sides. I'll have a sensible conversation, if he's interested. If not, too bad.

If God wants to torture me for not being a sycophant, that's on him.

It always boils back down to "You know god exists, but you just want to sin" doesn't it? How can there be any meaningful dialogue when theists keep insisting we're being dishonest, not just to them, but to ourselves?

[robvalue]

I think it's pretty clear the ones that "want to sin" is them, when they say such a thing. I guess they are jealous.

It's really sad that of all the imaginary friends people could come up with, they often have the very worst, stupidest, most sadistic monsters possible. I know it's not their fault, they didn't come up with them on their own.

[Mister Agenda]

I've seen little evidence that belief in God is much of a barrier to sinning.

[SteveII]

Look, it’s not lost on me that if we’re having a discussion about the internal consistency of Christian doctrine, I, as a non-Christian, am obligated to play by those rules. I understand that if it’s true that the reason people go to hell is because they have rejected something god has plainly offered them, then god’s actions can be morally justified.

But, I’m asking you to think outside the box of your religion, and consider this scenario objectively for one second. Is it sincerely your position that the most probable reason someone like me is an atheist, is because I have rejected some profound revelation of truth that was waved under my nose? That that explaination is more likely than the notion that I simply don’t find the evidence compelling? Are you willing to consider these options as the critically thinking individual you have demonstrated yourself to be, rather than just regurgitate what the Bible tells you to think?  Because, as I said previously, as an open-minded outsider looking in, ‘the ones who don’t believe just didn’t want to believe’, reeks of an ad hoc explaination; one Christians use to excuse the actions of their god, and dismiss the billions of human souls they believe will suffer eternally, without a nagging conscience keeping them up at night.

Let's look at your statement "I simply don’t find the evidence compelling". That could mean quite a range of things. 

1. What category of evidence? Historical, personal, the actual NT, discussions with knowledgeable believers.
2. How much evidence? Did you just hear this or that on AF or hear someone say like Dawkins say there was no evidence and decide that is good enough. Did you read a book and some articles by believers to see what it was about. Did you seek out discussions with knowledgeable Christians. Have you talked with people who have had changed lives and asked them their experiences. 
3. Do you actually understand the evidence in proper context? You can't determine if something is evidence if you don't even understand what it may be evidence of. 
4. Did you keep an open mind about the evidence in an honest search for any truth?

I think that 99% of the people on AF have not done 1-4 thoroughly enough to say they have rejected God with full knowledge of what they were rejecting. Before I get jumped on I also want to make the point that IMO more than 90% of Christians don't accept God/live their daily lives as Christians with a full knowledge of these things either. That's why you get plenty of people here that grew up in a "Christian" home and think they know what it is they have rejected. I will bet heavily on the fact that they don't. 

I never said "they don't want to believe". As I have pointed out the question is more like: have they searched enough and are they justified in their rejection. There is a lot at stake not to make an effort. This is not like a 50 person cult that is making some claim that you can dismiss without even knowing what the claim is. There is a mountain of information, discussion, experiences, and people available for an evaluation. 

Further, such explanation is a blanket straw-man that you and your book commit every single time you talk to a fellow human on the subject, to the degree that it can’t be a genuine discussion. If I tell you that I, Michelle, have wanted to believe in god for a long time; that when my belief was crumbling years ago, I prayed for any sign; any dangling rope to hold on to; and your response to me is, ‘according to my book you just didn’t want it bad enough’, then you’re not actually talking to me. You’re shutting down dialogue with a fallacy. Imagine how quickly you’d take me down, Steve, if I said, “you don’t really believe in god. You’re just holding on to a comforting fantasy, and deep down you know it isn’t true.”  I get that you are starting at, “my book is true”, but then why bother engaging with people at all if you aren’t going to accept the reasons they give you?  In that case, what you’re doing boils down to preaching.

I would never suggest "you didn't want it bad enough". I don't think I have ever come anywhere near something like that in any of my posts ever. I don't know why God did not send a sign you recognized. I believe it is still coming if you are still seeking it. Perhaps he knows what it will take for your to believe and that person/event has not been orchestrated yet.

I see my small purpose here is to mainly combat misconceptions about Christianity. It is one barrier I can help knock down and Don't mind the mental exercise. 

A narcissistic monster that came and died to so that you can choose to make things right-

Who knew, before doing any of that, how many billions of his creatures would not get the message, and what he would have to do to them after the fact. And he did it anyway. For himself. To serve his personal desires. But, since all those souls like mine don’t really want god’s gift in the first place, I guess that makes it okay.  

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.

 
Dictionary definiton time:

Glorify:

1. To praise and worship.

2. To describe or represent as admirable, especially unjustifiably.

I don’t see ‘fullest possible existence’, ‘relationships’, ‘fruits of the spirit’, ‘loving art’, or ‘mercy’ anywhere.

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. 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.

He could have done nothing at all.  Also, why does god deserve worship?  I thought it wasn’t about worship?  You said: 

The word would have been ‘worship’ if that were the case.

Does god want be worshipped?  Does he ask to be?

You are getting an incomplete picture of my original answer: the chief purpose of man: to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). 

https://www.gotquestions.org/glorify-God...thing.html:

Question: "How can I glorify God in everything I do?"

Answer: The concept of “glorifying” God is that of honoring God with one’s life. First Corinthians 10:31 teaches believers to honor the Lord in all they do: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” The context of this verse includes a discussion of the freedom believers have in Christ. We are free to make personal choices in life, but we are not to do anything that causes another person to “stumble” or sin in his own walk with God. We are to seek the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:32–33).
...
To glorify God requires full commitment to Him. In Colossians 3:23 we read, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.”
...
Glorifying God in everything means we honor Him in our thoughts and actions. Our thoughts are to be set on the things of God (Psalm 1) and the Word of God (Psalm 119:11). When we focus on God’s Word, we know what is right and can follow through with doing what is right.
...
Another way we glorify God in everything we do is in the proper treatment of our bodies. In speaking of sexual immorality, 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 teaches, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

To glorify God in everything, we must exercise faith (Hebrews 11:6), love without hypocrisy (Romans 12:9), deny ourselves (Luke 9:23), be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), and offer ourselves as “living sacrifices” to God (Romans 12:1). Every area of life is important to evaluate and live to its fullest for the glory and honor of God. We should strive for every thought and deed to bring joy to our Father in heaven.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.  I'd like to clarify that I'm asking questions and /or seeking clarification on the ideas/thoughts that you have posted here.  My intent is not to debate or to engage in other forms of win-lose competitions. 


That said, regarding (1), is it possible that the principle of sufficient reason (everything has a cause or reason) is just a result of the human mind attempting to make reality conform to its observations, perceptions, thought processes, etc.?  In the pursuit of objective truth, how often do humans end up projecting their own meaning onto that truth?  

Regarding (2), as previously mentioned, is it possible that the concept of a "first cause" is just the human mind projecting itself onto reality, rather than the human mind actually trying to objectively interpret reality as it is?

1. No, I think we derive a PSR from every observation that ever was with no exception. Why would we doubt those observations?(1) If we are going to go that far down the hyper-skepticism path, then your stance becomes that we can know nothing.(2) Do you have examples of where humans universally projected their own meaning on something? This argument avoids any personal projection of truth by referring to axioms like the PSR, the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Non-Contradiction.(3)

2. Related to (1), I think the human mind (collectively) is capable of working out fundamental features of reality. You don't have to have any biases to engage the argument. The inductive nature does not demand the conclusion is true--but even atheists have to concede that a first cause is a real problem for a purely naturalistic worldview. Isn't it special pleading when you encounter a problem your worldview can't deal with to say "well maybe we are projecting our thought onto reality"--when in literally every other area of science (and life) we act like we can navigate through it?(4)

(1)  Must every observation that ever was conform to how humans observe? Does reality operate solely within humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making?   

(2)  I clarified in my last post that I’m asking questions and am trying to learn more about your ideas and am interested in your responses to the questions that I’ve asked: I’m taking no stance.  Personally, I’ve made no final conclusions about reality, and as a result, I’m curious. That said, if reality does not conform to the ways that humans observe and make sense of things, then why must the conclusion be that humans can know nothing? Why can’t it be that humans can still know and understand features of reality provided that they minimize personal bias and are willing to interpret reality in a more neutral, objective manner that seeks to understand how reality works (rather than assuming that reality operates in a given way from the beginning)?  

(3) IMO, if one assumes that reality conforms to humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making, then it would seem that the following axioms posted above would also hold as they were derived via human reasoning.  However, if it is not the case that reality conforms to humanistic ways of thinking and sense-making, then how can one be sure that the above axioms will have universal validity in reality and that using them isn’t just some form of anthropomorphizing reality?

(4)  If one insists on framing intellectual conversations in a competitive way, then such a response could be perceived as special pleading to keep the contest alive.  However, I’ve already stated that my intent here is to ask questions: the last thing I want is for this exchange to devolve to some sort of contest.  That said, as stated in my response to (2), perhaps humans can navigate through life while learning cool, fascinating, and fundamental features of reality provided that they are willing to do this with a mindset that does not seek to explain via its own preconceptions/starting points but seeks to gain an understanding of that reality via inquisitiveness, neutrality/impartiality, and open-mindedness, so that it can explain reality in a more objective way.  What are your thoughts?