Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One

[David Sklansky]

1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.

3. Since he is good, he would likely make his existence and his wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him.

Ditto.

4. He also would like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes. Wishes that are in their best interest. On the other hand if they totally defy him there will a price to pay.

Perhaps not unreasonable.

5. He runs into a problem though. Because of his immense power, if not outright omnipotence, there will be those who have no love or respect for him but will obey his wishes soley because of fear of retribution. Similar to those I have written about who obey laws solely to avoid punishment. Not wishing to reward those who don't really feel in their heart what he wants them to feel, he gives them an opportunity to show their true colors. He does this by revealing himself to the world in a way that is not totally convincing. A way that gives those with hard hearts an excuse to defy him. That excuse being that they claim they don't think he even exists. In other words he is forced to make the evidence for his existence less than ironclad so as to make it clearcut (maybe not to him, but to others) that those who are with him are not just acting.

An interesting and somewhat plausible theory.

6. Among the remaining people. Those who love, honor, respect, revere, and worship him, he continues to give mixed messages. More detailed messages than the mere fact he exists and is there for mankind. And just like the messages regarding his existence, the truth is not clearcut. Especially to the person on the street who relies on the clergyman they grew up with. So what? This God wants more than just love respect and devotion. He wants you to be part of the ten percent or so who follow those who have studied his word and interpretted it the way he meant it. If your clergyman's interpretation is a tad off from that you are still OK. If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.

Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.

[hasugopher]

David, from a philosophical standpoint I would say that I think your post is spot-on. From a realistic/reasonable/scientific perspective, I think I have a problem with all of them. The only reason most intelligent people have to deal with these angles at all are because there are so many people out there with absolutely no perception of reality. Hence we are stuck trying to get into the 'mind' of some 'higher-being' even though there's obviously no reason to believe such a thing exists.

[Poker monkey]

None of these assertions stands up to any kind of scrutiny and I don't really see why you think it's an interesting question.

Descartes thought about the "God" thing and came up with some really sketchy arguments that modern philosophers rip to pieces. Fortunately these days there's not any pressure to agree with whatever the Church says.

Scientists and philosophers these days don't even bother considering such questions. With good reason - it's so completely obvious to any critical thinker that the "God" that religious zealots try to make us believe in is made-up and non-existent. It's much more interesting trying to explain things that do exist, or for which there is evidence that they might.

If theologists want to worry about such questions, fine, but I don't see how it fits in with any of Science, Math, or Philiosphy.

[Subfallen]

David -

You seem to be advocating such an ecumenical view of God that it's hard to see who would qualify as "hard-hearted." Why are you even trying to preserve that category?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.



2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't make any sense. I mean, I can definitely understand why people would be inclined to believe those, but they don't make any scientifical sense. Even if when analyzing one, you assume the other is true.


Do you really think these could make sense? Or were you just being nice to the brainwashed americans who think you're a monster if you don't?

You can reply by PM, I won't tell. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

That may makes sense but it contradicts the evidence unless you are blind or somehow unaware of what goes on around you!

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

It might make sense, although not sure about that, but that in no way makes it likely. With no idea how to estimate this lets use the infamous DS principle to give the universe a 50-50 chance to have been created. Now you have made three further assertions to the one that the universe was created
1) That an entity created it. In other words some self contained object created the universe, rather than some generalized natural process of the meta-universe. I am not sure I understand what that means in this context so I will ignore it.
2) That the entity was powerful. You do not need to be powerful to have a large effect, levers - pulleys - button that releases N-bomb. And how dose one calibrate power in this context anyway.
3) That the universe was created outside of time. Since time is a human invention used to help simplify understanding of how the universe works, its not clear what it means in this context, but maybe that is what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh!! What on earth does ‘good’ mean? I guess making anything can be considered constructive and you might relate that to ‘good’? Bit thin though. As this does not mean anything to me, I will ignore it for the moment.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Since he is good, he would likely make his existence and his wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him.

Ditto.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on! This is going too far. You have slipped in so many extra assumptions that your proposed scenario has to be unlikely in the extreme even if it can be made to make sense.
1) Your use of the word ‘he’ and ‘his wants’ appear to apply that not only do we have an entity, but a aware one, even a self aware one. Most things in the universe are NOT self aware, self awareness is vary rare - think about dividing the number of self aware objects in the solar system by the number of objects in the solar system to get an idea of what I mean - maybe use this number as an upper bound for an estimate of the likelihood of an entity that created the universe being self aware.
2) That a self aware entity that made the universe knows what it has done. Well you do a trick with a couple of little black holes you created - they disappear - "Gosh! What fun I wonder what happened".
3) "wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him" Yikes! If I created a universe in the lab as part of my "Meta-universe studies" practical I doubt I would care that much about anything in it. Further even if this entity is self aware, I see no reason why human emotions can be attributed to it. I still don’t understand the ‘good’ bit either.

Do you realize just how big the assumption of consciousness, that you have slipped in as if its automatic, actually is.

(Might make sense) to the power of three = Highly improbable.

[ QUOTE ]
4. He also would like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes. Wishes that are in their best interest. On the other hand if they totally defy him there will a price to pay.

Perhaps not unreasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - totally unreasonable. The universe is a big place. It unlikely that our highly improbable creator would be able to interact with the universe in any way. No reason to believe that its mental capacity is much greater than a typical human. With an infinite universe, however sparse life is there is still going to be too much of the stuff for anyone to cope with. So its specially selected us, why? Say there is one intelligent life form per galaxy, so an upper bound for the chance he has picked us might be estimated as around 1/(number of galaxies). "like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes" - and if all the above does hold I still don’t see why it should care a $hit about us.

(Might make sense) to the power of three * (Perhaps not unreasonable.) = Indistinguishable from zero.

[ QUOTE ]
5 ...
An interesting and somewhat plausible theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Each further assumption about this things feelings significantly reduces our already indistinguishable from zero estimate.

Without any form of experimental supporting evidence, every extra assumption reduce the likely hood of our hypothesis by at least an order of magnitude.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Your not alone.

I do not see that the assumptions in 6 are noticeably less plausible then most of the other ones.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Isaiah 28:9-13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus also was very explicit, it says right in the gospels that jesus spoke in parables so that most people would hear him and not understand.

from what I can tell, if you actually read the bible it really has almost nothing to do with the popular notions people have about it.

[andyfox]

The lord moves in mysterious ways. You're trying to force logic down the throat of faith.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHEN?

To make sense, an argument needs accepted premises otherwise it's just cranking the organ and playing GIGO.
When did these premises become accepted? -
-There is no reason there is something rather than nothing.
- Nothing can't create something.

And then the most gigantic, almost disconnected to the wild assertion premises is "SINCE there is something ....MUST".

Come on, kids that can't play in vegas read this stuff, let's promote some semblance of logic on here.

luckyme