A Theology Question

[Commander Dutch]

If God is all powerful, why can God not make everyone happy? If God created the entire universe, why not create a utopia?

If God cannot make everyone happy, God is not all powerful.
If God can make everyone happy and does not, God is cruel and petty.

Solution, God is not all powerful and cannot make everyone happy.

Even God has limits to power.

You are confusing mankind’s perception of God with whatever force actually created the Universe.

If God wanted everyone to be happy, then why are we here?

 

[Commander Dutch]

As I understood it meant that God did as good as it could possibly be done while preserving His plans for his creation. This is the best possible configuration of events that can be conceived. As such God performed exactly correctly.

(NOte: I'm not a big believer in any of this, it's just how I understood the "Problem of Evil" to be addressed most efficiently)

The Universe was created and has clear rules for operation. We all must live within those rules. People who don’t either end up dead, hurt or in a mental ward.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Classic Oom.

People only claim to use the ignore function.
They hate their lives.
They bear anger toward the world.

Perhaps Oom likes to flounce about grinning like an idiot, and that's perfectly OK.

Expectations that we should all do it aren't very realistic, however.
A tiny but nonetheless real number of us, after all, are not idiots.

Only idiots, liars and the mentally diminished believe lying about having others on ignore means something.

 

[Concart]

The Universe was created and has clear rules for operation. We all must live within those rules. People who don’t either end up dead, hurt or in a mental ward.

So are those rules written down somewhere? How are we supposed to know what the rules are?

IMHO, this is the true danger of religious dogma. The belief that those rules exist (I don't accept that, btw) and that THEY know what those rules are, and no one else does. It has led to more slaughter, death and violence than any other belief that has ever existed.

So, to repeat, how do we know the rules?

 

[Commander Dutch]

I have explained this now a number of times. It is how science approaches this type of question.

I cannot be more clear on this point.

Yes you have yet you don’t live by those posts. You talk about cows behind doors then admonish me for talking about rattlesnakes under boards. The fact you can’t see how irrational you behave is the most interesting part of your personality that I have in you.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You are confusing mankind’s perception of God with whatever force actually created the Universe.

If God wanted everyone to be happy, then why are we here?

If this god doesn't want everyone to be happy, why would we worship it?
Why would anybody worship an allegedly omnipotent god who didn't make a substantially better effort at creating the universe?

If a malignant god truly does exist, we're all fucked anyway.
No more harm comes from telling him to go fuck himself.

It's far more likely, is it not, that whatever unknowable story exists behind the emergence of matter in the great void,
the source is unlikely to be anything like our concept of a one, true God?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes you have yet you don’t live by those posts. You talk about cows behind doors then admonish me for talking about rattlesnakes under boards. The fact you can’t see how irrational you behave is the most interesting part of your personality that I have in you.

I have merely put those out as examples. I fear you have missed my point. I must endeavor to be more clear.

This is how science works. If that is uncomfortable for you then we have different approaches to epistemology. I will attempt to always behave scientifically when I can.

 

[Commander Dutch]

But you are understanding how SCIENCE approaches this sort of concept, correct? I am merely attempting to be consistent with scientific approaches to knowledge.

The scientific approach is “I don’t know” since there is no way to confirm or deny the hypothesis. You play like a scientist all the time yet you often violate your own logic. Example; the cows vs. rattlesnakes comment.

 

[Commander Dutch]

If this god doesn't want everyone to be happy, why would we worship it?
Why would anybody worship an allegedly omnipotent god who didn't make a substantially better effort at creating the universe?

If a malignant god truly does exist, we're all fucked anyway.
No more harm comes from telling him to go fuck himself.

It's far more likely, is it not, that whatever unknowable story exists behind the emergence of matter in the great void,
the source is unlikely to be anything like our concept of a one, true God?

Then don’t. I don’t worship God. I try to understand the nature of the Universe and existence. IMO, there is a reason for existence even though I don’t know what it is.

 

[Commander Dutch]

I have merely put those out as examples. I fear you have missed my point. I must endeavor to be more clear.

This is how science works. If that is uncomfortable for you then we have different approaches to epistemology. I will attempt to always behave scientifically when I can.

Yes, your point is that you are a hypocrite. It’s okay for you to use cows as an example of a point, but you castigate others for doing the same. Can’t you see how hypocritical you are being?

I’m fine with science and am comfortable enough with my own mind to admit when I don’t know something. You, OTOH, run around attacking others claiming you do know.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Only idiots, liars and the mentally diminished believe lying about having others on ignore means something.

And what manner of intellect is the source of this opinion that we should afford it weight?

You opine, Oom, which is of course your prerogative,
and when you do, those who know what's really going down
become aware of your swing and miss.

 

[Concart]

If this god doesn't want everyone to be happy, why would we worship it?
Why would anybody worship an allegedly omnipotent god who didn't make a substantially better effort at creating the universe?

If a malignant god truly does exist, we're all fucked anyway.
No more harm comes from telling him to go fuck himself.

It's far more likely, is it not, that whatever unknowable story exists behind the emergence of matter in the great void,
the source is unlikely to be anything like our concept of a one, true God?

Exactly. Why did God bother with this life? Why not just send everyone straight to heaven? The description of God in the Old Testament reveals a feckless, weak God who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. That God can indeed go fuck himself.

The answer to that question, of course, is that we ARE here, so God didn't do what would have certainly been no big deal. So I guess he is just fucking with us.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The scientific approach is “I don’t know” since there is no way to confirm or deny the hypothesis. You play like a scientist all the time yet you often violate your own logic. Example; the cows vs. rattlesnakes comment.

You really should look up "Inferential Statistics" to better explain what I am talking about.

The scientist testing a drug starts with the assumption "This drug has no effect" and then tests against it.

Are you familiar with finding a slope on a graph? Sometimes graphs have what appears to be a slope but the data is so scattered that the slope is actually just an accident of the noise in the data. They run various statistical tests on the slope to see if it is real. An F-test or a t-test on the regression or the slope.

The assumption is ALWAYS that there is no slope and that the F or t-test is testing against that. Even if it looks like a slope, the data may not bear this out.

Again, this is definitely more scientific, but it is how science is done. Start from the null and test against it.

 

[Commander Dutch]

And what manner of intellect is the source of this opinion that we should afford it weight?

You opine, Oom, which is of course your prerogative,
and when you do, those who know what's really going down
become aware of your swing and miss.

It depends. Who is “we”? You, yourself and Irene? Racist Bostonian Dagos?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes, your point is that you are a hypocrite. It’s okay for you to use cows as an example of a point, but you castigate others for doing the same. Can’t you see how hypocritical you are being?

I’m fine with science and am comfortable enough with my own mind to admit when I don’t know something. You, OTOH, run around attacking others claiming you do know.

My apologies for attempting to have an honest debate here. I am attacking NO ONE and I am not a hypocrite.

 

[Commander Dutch]

You really should look up "Inferential Statistics" to better explain what I am talking about.

The scientist testing a drug starts with the assumption "This drug has no effect" and then tests against it.

Are you familiar with finding a slope on a graph? Sometimes graphs have what appears to be a slope but the data is so scattered that the slope is actually just an accident of the noise in the data. They run various statistical tests on the slope to see if it is real. An F-test or a t-test on the regression or the slope.

The assumption is ALWAYS that there is no slope and that the F or t-test is testing against that. Even if it looks like a slope, the data may not bear this out.

Again, this is definitely more scientific, but it is how science is done. Start from the null and test against it.

Why? Will it prove or disprove that there is anything on those other side of life’s door?

Will it prove or disprove whether a cow or rattlesnake is behind a door without looking first?

 

[Commander Dutch]

My apologies for attempting to have an honest debate here. I am attacking NO ONE and I am not a hypocrite.

Disagreed you are attempting honest debate, that you haven’t attacked others and that you are not a hypocrite.

OTOH, I believe you truly believe your own claims, as irrational as they might be.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Exactly. Why did God bother with this life? Why not just send everyone straight to heaven? The description of God in the Old Testament reveals a feckless, weak God who throws temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. That God can indeed go fuck himself.

The answer to that question, of course, is that we ARE here, so God didn't do what would have certainly been no big deal. So I guess he is just fucking with us.

Or, as many Christians believe, just leave them in Heaven? Why send people’s souls to suffer on Earth?

The OT, like the NT and any other religious texts, is a human perception of something they can’t fathom. Ergo, calling God feckless or weak is illogical since we have no way of knowing. It only seems that way to mortals.

Is there any doubt that Kindergarteners think the Teacher is evil for putting them in a time out? Do Fifth Graders think their Teacher is evil for giving them homework? Are they correct or is that only their limited perception of the larger picture?

 

[Commander Dutch]

Science only asks questions about physical processes.

Science asks all kinds of questions, but expects the answers to be within the limits of the Natural Universe. No scientist of repute would expect ghosts to magically provide the answers. That’s what priests are for. LOL

 

[Concart]

Or, as many Christians believe, just leave them in Heaven? Why send people’s souls to suffer on Earth?

The OT, like the NT and any other religious texts, is a human perception of something they can’t fathom. Ergo, calling God feckless or weak is illogical since we have no way of knowing. It only seems that way to mortals.

Is there any doubt that Kindergarteners think the Teacher is evil for putting them in a time out? Do Fifth Graders think their Teacher is evil for giving them homework? Are they correct or is that only their limited perception of the larger picture?

For me, it's much easier. Occam's razor. God isn't limited, or jealous, or angry. God doesn't exist. The concept is entirely unnecessary, except as a tool to keep the masses in check. God is a man made invention.