A new wager?
Posted on: January 18, 2008 - 3:23am
Offline
A new wager?
Let us weigh the possibility of a benevolent, all powerful God against the possibility of there being a supreme evil. Then, let us consider the consequences.
If you are a typical Christian or Muslim, you must admit the following logic:
- God is, by definition, omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient.
- The devil is described as being created by god.
- The devil must therefore have a finite amount of power.
- The devil is also, by definition, superemely evil and malevolent.
- Benevolent beings oppose evil.
- Malevolent beings are sources of evil.
- God is opposed to the devil.
- God can eliminate evil completely and immediately.
- Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering.
- So God has no reason not to eliminate evil.
- So God has no reason not to act immediately.
- Evil persists.
- Therefore the devil is more likely to exist than God.
- Lies are a form of evil.
- The supreme evil is the devil.
- The devil is the supreme liar.
- If the worst lie is the conception of a false god, then its source is the devil.
- Since the devil is more likely to exist than god, god is more likely the ultimate lie.
- Anyone who worships God is more likely worshipping the ultimate evil.
- Login to post comments
I think the big assumption is that god is benevolent. Assuming that god is not benevolent would allow evil to persist. Perhaps god does not see a difference between good and evil as we do.
I took the Blasphemy Challenge! How about you?
i dont know much about the catholic version , but in my grandma`s fundie orthodox books , the story goes like:
first god made the angels, and had them worship him , much like he did with humans(later) , but eventually some of the angels lead by lucifer thought that they themselves can become as good , beutifull and perfect as god . God saw there mind , and THAT was the ultimate evil: Attempting to be like god..so he kicked them out to hell and made them devils
...
To my point , it`s obvious that the entire christian concepts of good , evil , morality are just expresions of monarchic/totalitarian "utopias" , with no real relevance to today`s society (clear example that evolutionism on a certain level can be applied to human society aswell , and inherently to morals)
then agate stargate anyone? remember that episode where they find a church...but the goaul`d was playing the devil not god as the previously thought?
I have heard a Christian rationalisation that evil exists because otherwise there would be no goodness in the world. God created everything because it pleased him to do so. In other words, God was bored so he created the universe to do something interesting. He created true evil so love could stand out in life.
I heard that in an internet video. Here's the link: www.allaboutgod.com/why-is-there-so-much-evil-in-the-world-video.htm
I have never seen an episode of stargate. However, in that awful movie "Constantine" the main character said something like this:
"God is a little kid who owns an ant farm."
I think that sums it up
.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
First mistake. Faith does not submit to logic. Christians and Muslims don't have to admit anything by logic.
Athiest: "Let's be logical for a minute."
Xtian: "Let's have faith for a minute."
Two different languages that have no translation between them.
My Artwork
You know, you are getting more and more atheistic every day ;P
Later, AdamTM
- I'm the guy that gets called when the other guy is not around-
- I didnt feel the love! ...Wait...was that something? ...no, no its gone -
TWATWAFFLE FOREVER
This principle is frequently evidenced by Christian theists who, based upon their faith, claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old or that Hell is at the center of the Earth, all humans are descended from Adam and Eve...
PDW
What do you mean by 'typical Christian or Muslim'?
I think 'benevolent', at the very least, can be strongly questioned. Dude ordered Joshua to commit genocide.
By common convention, maybe, but if by 'the devil', you're referring to Satan, then no. The biblical character of Satan appears to be tasked by God (see Job) with testing the faithful. Were your Teaching Assistants in school 'evil and malevolent' when they gave tests on what the professor had been lecturing on?
All of these things, and everything after, are dependant upon the earlier premises, which are already demonstrably flawed.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
inspectormustard,
Are your points supposed to follow logically from one another? If so, I'd revise your notes on logical inference, as there are quite a few non sequiturs. (like, why does a supreme liar necessarily have to be responsible for the worst lie?)
Oh, and here's an interesting contradiction that caught my eye.
Let's ignore for a minute that belief in an all-powerful God is illogical for other reasons. If you take the former of the above quotes as true, then the latter quote cannot follow. The existence of the Devil must be only be, at most, as likely as the existence of its creator, assuming that the Devil did not come into existence any other way.
You missed the point about all that jazz being a lie made up by the devil.
Was this addressed to me?
He used "God created the devil" as a logical axiom, and then attempted to go on to prove, using this, that God likely doesn't exist. Because these two points contradict each other, it essentially proves that the initial axiom is flawed.
So rather than proving that Christians must be worshipping the Devil if they're worshipping anyone, he proved only that "God created the Devil" is false. (Or, rather, he would have proved this, if his arguments weren't full of holes.)
No, no, no. I believe he intended it that "God created the Devil." is a lie told by the Devil.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
It's the biggest obstacle to people believing, and yet, one of the easiest for the serious student of the scriptures to answer. In fact, I can do it in two words-
Free will.
Scriptures record that Hashem (G-d) has taken for Himself a wife in Israel. And yet, we see through history that Israel has not always been faithful to Him. If He is all powerful, of course He could force her to. But this is not what He wants. Who among us wants a spouse which is merely subservient? Which is with us because they have no choice? No, we want a partner who WANTS to be with us, of their own free will, who CHOSE to be with us, because they love us.
It is the same with G-d. Yes, He wants obedience. But He does not force it on us. Because it would prove nothing if He did. It says nothing of a man's character that he does what he must. Only when we do the right thing, in the face of strong opposition, be it fear, temptation, whatever, are the heroes separated from the cowards, the sheep from the goats, the self-worshipping from the G-d-fearing.
True.
Yet, I play this game because merely because faith does not submit to logic does not mean that logic cannot lead to faith.
Not what he said at all. He might have meant this but certainly not a necessary inference.
Avoiding the "typical Christian or Muslim" statement.. I will try and address.
1. No, not by definition. Many people will make this statement as if it were "by definition"--but "by definition," a Muslim or a Christian merely must admit that God is "the one supreme being." I believe this to be a more accurate statement of Muslim and Christian theology.. although I could not say for sure. Since the omni-qualities are altogether pointless for practical discussion, they need not be discussed--at least IMO. We can if you want.. I guess.
In any case, "omniX" and "supreme being" are two different things entirely.
2. True.
3. True. (But only if based upon the supreme being concept, i.e. if God were omnipotent he could create another being of infinite power.
4. Conceded as true, although not necessary to either religion (at least in my understanding). Although, just to clarify, this does not mean "completely evil." St. Augustine would disagree with any statement that defines anything as "completely evil," for if this were the case the thing would not exist--in his theological construct at least.
5. Conceded.
6. Conceded, with focus on the words "sources of."
7. True.
Next section.
1. Not necessarily. Only if it is (1) within his power to do so and (2) consistent with his "benevolent" nature.
2. Not necessarily. Only if it is (1) within his power to do so and (2) consistent with his "benevolent" nature.
3. Does not follow. It might be (1) within my power to punch X but not within my nature, i.e. I'm a nice guy. Or, it might be (2) consistent with my nature to punch X in the face but it is not within my power, i.e. I've been temporarily disabled. Only if it is both (1) within my power and (2) consistent with my nature, that i would have no reason not to eliminate evil.
4. Same as above.
5. True.
6. Or, Evil persists because it is without of his power or without of his nature.
To give an example of this type of God, anthropomorphic it might be, that in comparing total evil with total good, it might not be "consistent with his benevolent nature" to wipe out all evil immediately even if it is within his power because the end result of "maximum good" or "de minimus evil," both presently and eternally, could not be served by the immediate annihilation of evil in the present.
IF it is only within God's power to act logically, then a perfectly logical construct IMO would be that since a possibility of "evil" is a function of "total freewill" and God wants "total freewill"; then in order to reach a world of "maximum good" there must be a sufficient amount of time with evil so that "total freewill" might "freely choose" good.
Very interesting, but its so much easier to say neither exist than look for the lesser of 2 evils.