OK, if you ever wondered how it would be if you were that kind of god then I'll happily give you that it'd be cool, noodly, and most of all filled with fun and freedom lovin' pirates.
But that's not what I had in mind...
What I did have in mind is a deity not unlike the ones advertised by the major(ity of) world religions. The omniscient, omnipotent, and above all, benign entity. I am sure it's not difficult to imagine oneself being just such a person, er, god. What's more, I'll bet you the bottom dollar the experience is also a (very) pleasant one. And I'll bet you your other bottom dollar you played it at least once in your life.
So, with this clear, let's see what the "rules of engagement" look like.
You are omniscient
You know absolutely everything that goes on in your world, past, present - and future. Yes, I know it's quite a stretch for your average capability to suspend disbelief, but that's what major religion teach us. If you're in one of them - or plan on entering one (or more, why not?) - you have to realise this is an idea you'd have to live with.
Immediate problem I can see with this is the future part. If I knew exactly what is going to happen at any given point in the future I'd probably want to kill myself lest I die from boredom. But that is a problem in itself, too! If I were to kill myself I'd have to already know I was going to kill myself, which would make the whole thing even worse.
But, let's not dwell on this, and let's crack on to
You are omnipotent
That's, by the looks of it, the best part of being a god. You can do whatever you want. Whatever. Period.
One thing I'd use this for first would be to modify that omniscient bit above. I wouldn't want to know all of my future. Knowing which horse will win next year's Grand National would be cool. Knowing much more than that would be suicide inducing (see above).
While I go through the benevolence bit, I'll leave you to ponder on whether I would still be an omniscient god of various religions if I decided to deliberately limit my omniscience to lottery winning part.
You are benevolent
You know you're not, really. I mean, who is? Remember, various religions assume their gods are completely and absolutely benevolent. Even if they are doing apparently horrible things they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart. Like that burning in hell for all eternity. Your god prescribed so it must be both good for you, and at the same time, a sign (if not the sign) of their sheer and utter benevolence. Go figure.
***
Now, imagine yourself being all three of the above.
And now, imagine you were to create a world full of people.
What do you mean: nobody in their right mind would want to create a world full of people? You can't choose! If most religions are to be believed, their respective deities did just that. What's more, it would seem that not only they wanted to create a world full of people, but they didn't necessarily also want a world full of Martians ,or Andromedans, or Whateverans. Or maybe they did, but never bothered to tell us. But even if they did, and the religions are suspiciously quiet on this one, we are apparently the chosen ones - about which religions are shouting from the rooftops.
So, you have to come up with a world full of people, and those are your chosen people, the ones you love above all else. Live with it. You are a god, after all.
Now to the most important bit: if you were a god (omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent), and you had to create a world full of people, and for the people, and those people are your chosen people who you love dearly and would do anything for them (including torture and kill your own son) - would this world (and those people!) be anything like this world is and we - the people - are?
I submit to you that you would not. I'd even tell you that you couldn't!
How so?
Well, you are benevolent, aren't you? So why create a world in which your beloved, chosen people suffer? There's no need for suffering at all! You are, after all, omnipotent as well, so you could have easily crafted a world in which your chosen people would be always happy and content. And if you're going to tell me that your people will tend to spoil your gifts and create suffering themselves I will remind you that a) you are omniscient as well so you should have been able to foresee it, and b) you are omnipotent so you would be able to act and correct at any point - preferably the starting point, what with you being all mighty and all perfect, and all.
On the other hand, if we simply removed the benevolent bit then we'd all have a ball! Well, that's if we're all gods, that is. What fun could you (or even better, I) have being omnipotent and omniscient (to a point - remember that Grand National!). Of course, we'd probably create a bit different creature than your average human. Maybe something not after our own image, but something rather more pleasing maybe? And then, what fun could be had pitting those poor (but good looking!) creatures against each other (and maybe select animals, and even plants)!
What do you mean we already have that? Surely not! If we are to believe your average popular religion it is entirely impossible! Their god(s) are benevolent. They love their people (that's us to you and me). They're only doing it for our benefit and eternal life. Oh, and if we can't be forced into being "good" (for any given value of "good") then our deities, in their infinite benevolence, will make us suffer for an eternity. How terribly nice of them.
Therefore, I must suggest to you, regardless of whether there are any gods out there, most (all?) modern religions are, for want of a better word: bollocks. Crap. Utter nonsense. And that's even by their own standards of "proof".
And then, having realised most (all?) modern religions are really talking through their collective arses, you should be free to ask yourself: even if religions are wrong, is there really a god (or gods) out there? And if there were, would it make any difference to us?
I mean, when you look at the human lot, it is most definitely looking as if there's nobody watching, and certainly nobody watching over us. So, even if there were any gods, it seems they're quiet busy elsewhere. Why wouldn't they be. Being omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, they are busy playing with their people. Or, at best, busy watching us unhappy lot and making bets on what other stupid things bar religion we're going to come up next instead of getting off our collective arses and working hard (and urgently!) at improving our lot.
There may also be one other thing those putative gods are busy with:
Betting on next year's Grand National...
I'd be tempted to pick your argument apart, but I'm not sure it would do much good.
ReplyDeleteLet me summarise your post instead: you are glad you aren't godlike and because you don't want to be the god of your own religion you reject all religion for yourself and for everyone else too.
You don't care what any religion actually promotes or says, because you're against it whatever it is, even if it's good. Which it can't be because otherwise you'd care.
A perfect example of twisted thinking - do you take a lot of drugs?
If you want to debate the range of theological positions I'll happily play devil's advocate.
I'll also give you a free warning, play with fire and you'll get burnt.
Unsurprisingly, you managed to completely miss the point so let me summarise it for you: any system of ideas which rests on a set of self-conflicting ideas (or worse, dictates) is either obviously false, obviously stupid, or both. Believing in it is positively harmful. Or, if one insists on believing then one needs to come to terms with what said system of beliefs really says.
ReplyDeleteSadly, you don't seem to understand reductio ad absurdum even if you seem to be very familiar with argumentum ad hominem. More worryingly, you also find it appropriate to also hint at argumentum ad baculum.
This has nothing to do with me (not) wanting to be a god. Just with showing how one cannot be a BOO god and stay consistent (and probably sane, for that matter).
Then even (especially!) if I wanted to be a god, I don't need your "theological position" (or anyone else's for that matter). Mostly because they tend to be much more theistic than logical, if I'm honset with you, but also, how could we discuss theology at all! You'd have to discuss mine (because I me begin a god in my own right yours is obviously false!) On top of that: a) you know nothing about it, and b) it being totally arbitrary (a free warning to you) I am allowed to shift around to my heart's content. That's how, in my experience, such belief systems work, don't they?
Having said all that, and possibly giving you a teeny bit of satisfaction, were it in fact possible for me to be a god, I think I might even enjoy it. One thing I'll probably make sure from the start is that my people-charges (if I in fact decide to create them - kittens are so much cuter) do not grow into silly religionistas obsessed with me. Heck, I may even find it fun to make them obsessed with some totally random, non-existing, deity, then watch them get their little minds in big knots.
But, even if it were my pleasure to do so, I'd make sure they are, all in all, much better people, or at least good enough not to be inclined to insult and threaten their brethren (and sistren!) for whatever reason - and especially not because they have different ideas about fairies.
Oh, so you don't think I missed that bit: I do care a great deal about what various religions promote. Sadly (horrifyingly!) most seem to promote quite unpalatable things. Being a selfish bastard, I'll point out to you that a lot of them will happily see me be tortured in the most horrible ways imaginable just because I try to poke holes (and fun) at them. What a lot of them think (and do!) about (and with!) various other rather innocent people one can disregard only by heavy use of hypocrisy... er, self delusion... er, sorry, there's really no nice way of putting it.
PS
I don't intend to discuss this further (mostly because I have better, more productive, things to do), but I will, of course, happily publish any response you care to write - provided it's publishable, that is.
I see you don't need me to play devils advocate with you - you prefer playing with yourself!
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree with you that its perverse and positively harmful to support an unsupportable position, which is what makes me wonder why do you do so?
From what you've said you seem to be arguing not for atheism, but for nihilism, and have falsely conflated these opposing positions.
Maybe I can challenge you to account for that apparent contradiction?
Since your comments are continuing to offer only personal insults and misinterpretations the one above is the last I will publish.
ReplyDeleteYou could also try getting your terminology sorted or, better still,understood. You seem to struggle a bit in that department.
Bandying "big" words around without actually knowing what they stand for is showing either a lack of understanding of what you read/know/want to say or, worse, but probably the case here, lack of good argument which wouldn't require logical (and other fallacies).
After all, on both occasions you had a chance to deliver any sort of (counter)argument you chose just to threaten with an upcoming one - which consistently failed to materialise. Unlike ad hominem attacks...
Thanks for your "contribution" so far (although I struggle to see what it was, really), but I must say goodbye and fare-thee-well...
Thank you for avoiding any of the points raised.
ReplyDeleteIt's most helpful to see you projecting criticism of my 'big words' without actually providing any actual indication of what you refer to.
Which piece of terminology exactly do you think I've misused? Examples, perchance?
Maybe I can point you in the direction of the real meaning of ad hominem...
Equally I have specifically refrained from any personal insults or misinterpretations, rather I have challenged you to account for your apparent discrepancies of which you are clearly incapable.
That incapacity only adds weight to the argument that atheism is widely used as an excuse for moral and intellectual laziness (ie nihilism).
I would encourage you to disprove this thesis, but you've stated you are already satisfied. I will have to draw my own conclusions about the reasons for that.
I suggest your negative attitude to reasoned debate indicates you have made false assumptions about the basis for my comments. Good luck with that.
Hmm...
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should point you to the "real meaning" of ad hominem? Or maybe not. After all, I am obviously "on medication". But you know what? I decided I will. Just click on the link above.
Possibly for the same reason, and as you can see, I have decided to publish your comment again so that everyone can see how you still evade giving any arguments I could try to shoot down. Instead, while you finally abstain from threats and insults, you still just offer some statements you (fallaciously) believe in.
In the last attempt to educate, I will point you to argumentum ad baculum, which you seem to have missed to mention above (see, I am not afraid of your threats of fire, and presumably, brimstone as well). Also, I think you could benefit from looking up nihilism, too. I can only puzzle over where you found that in what I wrote - not least because you never said!
Let me remind you: stating that I am wrong (or a nihilist) does not make it so. It also does not attract any other counter-argument than "no, I'm not". Which, really, would be more like playground debate. I really see nothing worthy of debate in what you have written in your comments.
Let's try to summarise:
"You don't care what any religion actually promotes or says, because you're against it whatever it is, even if it's good. Which it can't be because otherwise you'd care. ... Do you take a lot of drugs? ... Play with fire and you will get burnt."
Erm, I never said I cared or didn't about any fact about religion apart from it being an internally inconsistent thought system, and demonstrably not describing the world as we experience it. Whether it also offers a few (obvious!) good moral advice is beside the point. Smells of hay to me...
"From what you've said you seem to be arguing not for atheism, but for nihilism, and have falsely conflated these opposing positions."
WTF? Where did you find that in what I wrote. I will refer you bcak to what nihilism is, but also point out that I didn't even argue for atheism as such either! Not that I don't think that that's the only reasonable position an educated and sensible person can have, but it is not something mentioned in the original text. If you chose to read it that way - that's your problem. You could have also read it in a way that challenges your assumptions about what sort of being your chosen deity really has to be, given the evidence.
And this is really the last time I bother to even read, let alone publish or respond to your "comments". It's a waste of time, and I hope it becomes obvious with my deciding to renege on my original decision not to do it this time either.
Heck, the way it's going the next time you'll give me reason to invoke Godwin's Law!