# When did religion jump the shark for great thinkers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2010, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373 "2010-05-31T11:07:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/221 "2010-06-03T19:26:43Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And in my opinion omnipotence makes things very _easy_ to understand - there are no exceptions to worry about! No special cases, no unusual circircumstaces, because the awesome power of the omnipotence bulldozes through everything. No unusual abilities are necessary to understand that if an onipotent god wants something, then it happens. And honestly I don’t see how a change in perspective could change this fact without stripping the god of its omnipotence in the process. > > I don’t give god an ineffability/get-out-of-logic-jail card. _Nothing_ gets a get-out-of-logic card, though, so at least I’m being fair. I’m not going to respond to the other post because I can see we’d just start going in circles. Here’s our differences as I see them concerning this discussion. I hope it’s understood that I’m not arguing for the existance of an omnipotent god. I’m arguing that while we can reasonably find valid reasons to not believe in one , we can’t really claim logical inevitibility concerning such a beings non existance. Again, omnipotence means god can do anything but we need to know the intent and purpose of creation to undertand what such a god will do. If we assume an omnipotent being created everything then we ask why. That’s purpose and intent. I understand your argument that an omnipotent god must want whatever is happening now. In some ways I can accept that although I’d say what is happening now is the illusion of choice and the concepts of good and evil. The journey itself, as I said. I still mantain that since we can never have the persective to encompass all creation, it’s purpose and intent, it’s reason for being, we cannot adequately judge or claim logically that an omni being that does have that perspective cannot exist. Probably not is as far as we can go. Anyway, I completely agree that in many relgious god models and doctrines there are plenty of logical conflicts. I think the most a believer can say is I believe in god but I can’t know. When we admit we can’t know we can no longer claim divine authority over others. I hate it when believers preface what is ultimately thier personal view with “according to God or God’s word” They need to take responsibility for your own beliefs and opinions and stop trying to justify them with religious language. peace and thanks for the thought provoking input. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/222 "2010-06-03T19:28:25Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Let’s say you have a beloved dog who the vet discovers to have a cancerous tumor. You might decide to euthanize your pet; or you might decide to have it undergo intrusive and painful surgery; or you might choose to let it go and hope the dog doesn’t suffer too much before it dies. From the dog’s perspective, are any of these loving actions by you? She doesn’t understand cancer, all she knows is that either you’ve killed her, allowed her to be tortured, or allowed her to suffer. Does that mean you don’t love your dog? God and Michael Vick, man, same deal. On the other hand, if you take your pit bull to the ring and force it to fight and get torn to shreds, is the dog still obligated to love you? Isn’t pitiful when a dog loves someone who abuses them for no reason? Your hidden assumption is that God is good, and you ignore or try to cover up evidence to the contrary. > [@](#): > > When you define God as all-powerful and all-loving, yet observe evil and suffering, you come to the conclusion that there is no God. I come to the conclusion that we don’t fully understand love _or_ suffering, nor do we fully understand God. > We only know that he _allows_ it to occur. I often allow my children to do things I would prefer they didn’t. I come to the conclusion that you are willfully blind. Tell me why every single little child who died in the tsunami had to. Couldn’t God’s purpose be fulfilled just as well if one fewer baby died? Two fewer? A hundred fewer? There are always true believers who will make excuses for monsters. Lots of Russians - and even Communists in America - thought that Stalin must have had a good reason for the show trials, and that the starvation of the kulaks was well justified for the greater good of Communism, and that everyone in the Gulag deserved to be. And not even they claimed that Stalin was omniscient. Believers say God is good, and then God sends an earthquake to shake down a cathedral full of worshipers. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/223 "2010-06-03T19:33:26Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Ah, ok, why does an omnipotent God allow any suffering at all to occur rather than magically making everyone perfect automatons? And, I’m not allowed to cite free will? > > Hell if I know. What am I, God? Strawman. No one is arguing against any suffering, only needless suffering. Wiping us out in a flood hardly affects anyone’s free will - except destroying the free will of those who die. We can’t take off and fly, and are thus limited. Does that hurt our free will. Would god making it impossible for us to kill in cold blood really affect our free will more than the psychological issues we already have? I bet neither you nor I could just kill someone - do we have less free will than a psychopath who can? You aren’t god, but you are a human who can think rationally. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/224 "2010-06-03T19:44:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Tell me why every single little child who died in the tsunami had to. Couldn’t God’s purpose be fulfilled just as well if one fewer baby died? Two fewer? A hundred fewer? I can only guess why bad things happen. I don’t know why God allows them to happen. I do know he often makes the best of them. > [@](#): > > There are always true believers who will make excuses for monsters. Lots of Russians - and even Communists in America - thought that Stalin must have had a good reason for the show trials, and that the starvation of the kulaks was well justified for the greater good of Communism, and that everyone in the Gulag deserved to be. And not even they claimed that Stalin was omniscient. Believers say God is good, and then God sends an earthquake to shake down a cathedral full of worshipers. God doesn’t send earthquakes; he allows earthquakes, which is an important distinction theologically. And yes, we can come up with theories, but we don’t really understand why because we don’t have God’s perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/225 "2010-06-03T19:48:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Strawman. No one is arguing against any suffering, only needless suffering. Wiping us out in a flood hardly affects anyone’s free will - except destroying the free will of those who die. We can’t take off and fly, and are thus limited. Does that hurt our free will. Would god making it impossible for us to kill in cold blood really affect our free will more than the psychological issues we already have? I bet neither you nor I could just kill someone - do we have less free will than a psychopath who can? > > You aren’t god, but you are a human who can think rationally. Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your question. Help me understand what you’re asking – is it “Why didn’t God give us free will but with the inability to sin?” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/226 "2010-06-03T20:40:03Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Ah, ok, why does an omnipotent God allow any suffering at all to occur rather than magically making everyone perfect automatons? And, I’m not allowed to cite free will? You’re only allowed to cite free will if you can resolve all the problems with it. Here’s three: 1. It’s very poorly defined. What’s it free _of_? I’m not random; all of my decisions are spawned from my knowledge and preferences and emotions. If I hate the taste of peas, and will therefore **never** willingly choose to eat peas, am I free or not? 2. It’s not implementable. All models of will divide the decision making process between three processess - deterministic ones, completely nondeterministic (random) ones, and “free will”. We can speculate mechanisms for how deterministic and random processes work pretty easy (the first is computation and the second is signal noise), but what about free will? It’s always described as a magically complex black box; what’s inside? How does it work? Well, the only options are through a mix of deterministice, nondeterministic, and…‘free will’ processes. But how does _those_ free will processes work, under the hood? Well… It’s turtles all the way down. 3. God supposedly predicts human actions, and events based on human actions. God says there’s going to be a war? I guess we can’t choose peace then. Bye-bye free will. If you can resolve all of these problems in a definite and nonfallacious manner, after collecting your stack of complementary philosophy doctorate and your nobel prize you may come back and post in this thread using free will as a cite. > [@Skammer](#): > > Hell if I know. What am I, God? “I can’t even think of _one way_ I could be right, but I still am!” is _such_ a compelling argument, isn’t it? > [@Voyager](#): > > Strawman. No one is arguing against any suffering, only needless suffering. Actually I _am_ including all suffering, because with an all-powerful god watching out for us _no_ suffering is necessary. And I’m including human actions too because there’s no reason not too; forms of non-libertarian free will may exist but they do nothing to excuse god for the evil in the world. > [@Skammer](#): > > Help me understand what you’re asking – is it “Why didn’t God give us free will but with the inability to sin?” This is an excellent question - sinless free will is by definition possible. Unless you’re saying that _God_ doesn’t have free will? But the argument actually is “Libertarian free will doesn’t exist. Why did this god create us _knowing_ we would ‘sin’? To add a little exciting variety to the suffering that the volcanos and diseases competition were causing?” ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/227 "2010-06-03T21:19:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You’re only allowed to cite free will if you can resolve all the problems with it. Here’s three: > > 1. It’s very poorly defined. What’s it free _of_? I’m not random; all of my decisions are spawned from my knowledge and preferences and emotions. If I hate the taste of peas, and will therefore **never** willingly choose to eat peas, am I free or not? > > 2. It’s not implementable. All models of will divide the decision making process between three processess - deterministic ones, completely nondeterministic (random) ones, and “free will”. We can speculate mechanisms for how deterministic and random processes work pretty easy (the first is computation and the second is signal noise), but what about free will? It’s always described as a magically complex black box; what’s inside? How does it work? Well, the only options are through a mix of deterministice, nondeterministic, and…‘free will’ processes. But how does _those_ free will processes work, under the hood? Well… It’s turtles all the way down. > > 3. God supposedly predicts human actions, and events based on human actions. God says there’s going to be a war? I guess we can’t choose peace then. Bye-bye free will. > > If you can resolve all of these problems in a definite and nonfallacious manner, after collecting your stack of complementary philosophy doctorate and your nobel prize you may come back and post in this thread using free will as a cite. Okay, thanks, this is where I _thought_ **Voyager** was going. #3 is a red herring; knowing the future is not the same as determining the future. #1 is a valid point, but no matter how much you dislike peas, you _could_ eat them. Whether or not you do really comes down to #2 which is the crux of the free will problem. I’m on the fence about Free Will myself. It’s an interesting philosophical question. Christian tradition is clear that we have the ability to distinguish and choose between good and evil. That seems to be our experience, although it could be an illusion. I mean, there are evil things I could do and get away with, so the only thing seemingly stopping me from doing them is the fact that they’re evil. Why do I choose that way? I suspect that this all ties back to the fact that humans are created “in the image of God” with the capacity to make those decisions. But in my day-to-day life, the mechanism doesn’t matter to me. > [@](#): > > “I can’t even think of _one way_ I could be right, but I still am!” is _such_ a compelling argument, isn’t it? You keep forgetting that the point is for you to disprove God, not for me to prove him. I haven’t claimed to be able to do so. Not knowing God’s motives doesn’t make God puff out of existence. > [@](#): > > Actually I _am_ including all suffering, because with an all-powerful god watching out for us _no_ suffering is necessary. And I’m including human actions too because there’s no reason not too; forms of non-libertarian free will may exist but they do nothing to excuse god for the evil in the world. > > This is an excellent question - sinless free will is by definition possible. Unless you’re saying that _God_ doesn’t have free will? > > But the argument actually is “Libertarian free will doesn’t exist. Why did this god create us _knowing_ we would ‘sin’? To add a little exciting variety to the suffering that the volcanos and diseases competition were causing?” The traditional answer to his question (aside from “we don’t really know why”) is that God created us because it is Gods nature to exist in community, in relationship, and God created the world to be in relationship with him. Real relationships must be mutual, so God created us with the ability to ignore him. And, because we have turned away from God, the whole world suffers things like volcanoes and diseases and so forth as well (note: that’s a theological answer, not a scientific one: I know about tectonic plates and germ theory). Again, God is not disprovable. I can’t prove he exists; maybe I can’t even make a compelling argument for you. But everything I’ve said is pretty true to traditional Christian theology; I’m not making this up as I go along. This is why I snerked at claims that “all God theories are easily disprovable.” That’s just laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/228 "2010-06-03T21:40:09Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your question. > > Help me understand what you’re asking – is it “Why didn’t God give us free will but with the inability to sin?” Sin is poorly defined. If sin means going against any jot or tittle of whatever holy writ you happen to accept, I’ll agree that inability to sin and free will are incompatible. However, if you believe that god is omnibenevolent, that all in our word is for the best, god could reduce suffering without reducing free will by making the most horrible of offenses impossible. A world without a mass murderer is better than a world without one. Would we really be worse off if the 9/11 hijackers had been incapable of carrying out their mission? Then we get to natural evil. The tsunami not happening would have decreased on one’s free will, and increased it for those who died. The only way you can respond to me constructing a world much like ours but incrementally better is to state by assertion that every action of God’s is for the best in some unknown way. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/229 "2010-06-03T21:51:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Actually I _am_ including all suffering, because with an all-powerful god watching out for us _no_ suffering is necessary. And I’m including human actions too because there’s no reason not too; forms of non-libertarian free will may exist but they do nothing to excuse god for the evil in the world. I think we can construct situations where there is no solution that does not involve some suffering. Say Girl A loves Boy B, and Boy B can’t stand Girl A. Someone is going to get hurt, unless God so micromanages the world such that this is not possible. In that case, I might say that I suffer through lack of free will in my romantic decisions. I think it is enough to say that an omnibenevolent God minimizes suffering, not eliminate it - but he clearly doesn’t even come close to doing this. > [@](#): > > This is an excellent question - sinless free will is by definition possible. Unless you’re saying that _God_ doesn’t have free will? Nah - God is sinless by definition, so he is unconstrained. In the Biblical view, he is clearly not constrained from killing all sorts of people and ordering the deaths of more. > [@](#): > > But the argument actually is “Libertarian free will doesn’t exist. Why did this god create us _knowing_ we would ‘sin’? To add a little exciting variety to the suffering that the volcanos and diseases competition were causing?” In Judaism you sin, you ask for atonement, you get given it and live another year, and you eventually die. In Christianity, God knows we sin, and the punishment is eternal suffering. Except when you accept Jesus - but God didn’t even get around to sending him for a long time. Why a benevolent God would set up this scenario is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/230 "2010-06-03T22:13:26Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Okay, thanks, this is where I _thought_ **Voyager** was going. #3 is a red herring; knowing the future is not the same as determining the future. #1 is a valid point, but no matter how much you dislike peas, you _could_ eat them. Whether or not you do really comes down to #2 which is the crux of the free will problem. > > I’m on the fence about Free Will myself. It’s an interesting philosophical question. Christian tradition is clear that we have the ability to distinguish and choose between good and evil. That seems to be our experience, although it could be an illusion. I mean, there are evil things I could do and get away with, so the only thing seemingly stopping me from doing them is the fact that they’re evil. Why do I choose that way? I suspect that this all ties back to the fact that humans are created “in the image of God” with the capacity to make those decisions. But in my day-to-day life, the mechanism doesn’t matter to me. Certian prediction of the future is only possible if it’s predetermined; if you _can’t_ be wrong, then people have no choice but to act as you predicted. I’ll note that this doesn’t mean that the prediction _itself_ removed your supposed free will; you might have never been able to act any differently than you did, and the fact somebody could predict you with certainty merely demonstrated that fact. And, who says I _could_ choose to eat the peas? I don’t think I could. Under _different circumstances_ I might have made a different choice, but that says nothing about my ability to make a different choice under the identical circumstances. (Circumstances include my own internal and mental state, of course.) I will note, that we do have a certain kind of free will - we _are_ assessing situations, weighing options, and actually making decisions. It’s just that this is a mechanical process, which (presuming no randomity) will always churn out the same result in the same circumstances. In real life of course circumstances are never quite the same, resulting in seeming unpredictability; however for an omniscient god with full constant knowledge of our mental state, predicting us would be child’s play; automatic even. Obviously I’m not on the fence on this subject; but then I’m not bothered by the fact I’m making decisions through a rational, predictable process. I don’t have a god that needs rationalization after all. > [@Skammer](#): > > You keep forgetting that the point is for you to disprove God, not for me to prove him. I haven’t claimed to be able to do so. Not knowing God’s motives doesn’t make God puff out of existence. You’re mistaken - I’ve provided an argument that, if valid, disproves your god. You are now trying to poke holes in it, which puts the burden of proof in your court until you come up with something solid, which would then volley the burden of proof back to me. And while “I can’t even think of one way you could be wrong, but you still are!” does have a certain compelling simplicity to it, I’m not _quite_ sure I should feel beaten yet. > [@Skammer](#): > > The traditional answer to his question (aside from “we don’t really know why”) is that God created us because it is Gods nature to exist in community, in relationship, and God created the world to be in relationship with him. Real relationships must be mutual, so God created us with the ability to ignore him. And, because we have turned away from God, the whole world suffers things like volcanoes and diseases and so forth as well (note: that’s a theological answer, not a scientific one: I know about tectonic plates and germ theory). Funny that I’ve never even _heard_ that traditional answer. :dubious: Regardless, as you have laid out a god-theory, I shall assess it: > [@](#): > > God created us because it is Gods nature to exist in community, in relationship, and God created the world to be in relationship with him. I see nothing wrong with this - god was lonely so he made friends. A perfectly plausible notion, consistent with omnipotence. > [@](#): > > Real relationships must be mutual, so God created us with the ability to ignore him. This is pretty dodgy - what does this even mean? “Mutual”? A mutual relationship is just when both people are participating. Regardless, I’ll with tentative suspicion allow that god needed to give people some form of free will in order to make God happy. I utterly reject that this required his creations be created with the ability/inclination towards doing evil; god’s own existence proves that this is unnecessary and would be sadistic of god to include. > [@](#): > > And, because we have turned away from God, the whole world suffers things like volcanoes and diseases and so forth as well What? _Why_ did turning away from God have this effect? Was there a string tied from our ankle to the giant ‘Evil: on/off’ switch, which got pulled when we turned? Who tied it? Oh wait, the traditional answer (as in, the one in the book) is that god got _pissed off_ and started torturing us out of spite, just like any rational person would do. Yay God? Of course this raises the question, is he still pissed off? Because if not, why didn’t he just forgive everyone when he calmed down from his divine tantrum? Jesus handed out forgiveness like candy, so it’s clearly possible (as if omnipotence left that to doubt). What reason does God have to persist with his evil?\* - This is of course a trick question - the only possible correct answer is some variant of “because the omnipotent god likes things best exactly the way they are, and so is uninclined to change them”. > [@Skammer](#): > > Again, God is not disprovable. I can’t prove he exists; maybe I can’t even make a compelling argument for you. But everything I’ve said is pretty true to traditional Christian theology; I’m not making this up as I go along. This is why I snerked at claims that “all God theories are easily disprovable.” That’s just laughable. Unless you manage to beat the POE, which you haven’t done yet, he’s already disproven. And traditional Christian theology says that there was a global flood and no evolution, so yeah, that doesn’t help you any. And by the way, I said **virtually** all god-hypotheises can be solidly disproven. I’ll thank you not to misquote me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/231 "2010-06-03T22:31:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think we can construct situations where there is no solution that does not involve some suffering. Say Girl A loves Boy B, and Boy B can’t stand Girl A. Someone is going to get hurt, unless God so micromanages the world such that this is not possible. In that case, I might say that I suffer through lack of free will in my romantic decisions. I think it is enough to say that an omnibenevolent God minimizes suffering, not eliminate it - but he clearly doesn’t even come close to doing this. Arguably an omnipotent omnsicient god _has_ to micromanage everything; he is directly aware of everything and must choose to act or not. Fortunately for him he can act without effort, eh?. So summoning cupid or predestining everyone with a soulmate would be child’s play. And as for free will, you can’t lose what you never had. So what was the problem again? > [@Voyager](#): > > Nah - God is sinless by definition, so he is unconstrained. In the Biblical view, he is clearly not constrained from killing all sorts of people and ordering the deaths of more. Pedant. The bastard is still evil, regardless of the fact he gives himself a pass that he hypocritically denies others. Plus I doubt that **Scammer** will accept this explanation of God’s free will anyway. > [@Voyager](#): > > In Judaism you sin, you ask for atonement, you get given it and live another year, and you eventually die. In Christianity, God knows we sin, and the punishment is eternal suffering. Except when you accept Jesus - but God didn’t even get around to sending him for a long time. Why a benevolent God would set up this scenario is beyond me. No (omni-)benevolent god would, obviously; a benevolent god would never inflict or allow suffering, for punishment or any other reason. They would always be swooping in with hankies, or quietly re-engineering situations to remove the problem, depending on which they prefer. There are various ways they could deal with evils between individuals, but none of them would involve inflicting suffering as punishment. I can think of various **non** -benevolent reasons a god might set up such a secenario, though frankly the less absurd ones require the god to be nonomnipotent as well. Otherwise we’re pretty much limited to talking about continuous childish tantrums and grudges, or fiendish pointless mind games. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/232 "2010-06-03T22:44:17Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I can only guess why bad things happen. I don’t know why God allows them to happen. I do know he often makes the best of them. Hang on a moment. I don’t see how this logically follows through. Doesn’t the last statement presuppose knowledge of God’s objectives - and, if it doesn’t, doesn’t it then imply that \*our \*conceptions of God’s objectives have some merit, and that he may be judged against them? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/233 "2010-06-03T22:57:13Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Arguably an omnipotent omnsicient god _has_ to micromanage everything; he is directly aware of everything and must choose to act or not. Fortunately for him he can act without effort, eh?. So summoning cupid or predestining everyone with a soulmate would be child’s play. And as for free will, you can’t lose what you never had. So what was the problem again? Hey, I can suffer from missing things I’ve never had - Raquel Welch, for instance. (You can tell my age.) Plus if everyone were happy, we’d miss out on most of our great literature. So I reject the possibility of a zero suffering solution - but that doesn’t give god a pass by any means. > [@](#): > > Pedant. The bastard is still evil, regardless of the fact he gives himself a pass that he hypocritically denies others. Plus I doubt that **Scammer** will accept this explanation of God’s free will anyway. I never said sinless != evil. Theft is a sin, but refusing to steal a loaf of bread from a rich person for your starving baby is evil. No (omni-)benevolent god would, obviously; a benevolent god would never inflict or allow suffering, for punishment or any other reason. They would always be swooping in with hankies, or quietly re-engineering situations to remove the problem, depending on which they prefer. There are various ways they could deal with evils between individuals, but none of them would involve inflicting suffering as punishment. I can think of various **non** -benevolent reasons a god might set up such a secenario, though frankly the less absurd ones require the god to be nonomnipotent as well. Otherwise we’re pretty much limited to talking about continuous childish tantrums and grudges, or fiendish pointless mind games. [/QUOTE] God swooping in is interesting. If such a god existed, we would never know anything but bliss, which we wouldn’t appreciate not knowing anything else. We’d thus have no great incentive to thank god, since we know that the more suffering goes on around you, the louder the prayers. The only survivor of 100 in a plane crash thinks god is many times greater than the only survivor of a car crash killing 3. Since God is really into us kissing his butt, god would be fed up with the situation. Since God knows this in advance, he’d never bother even creating us. If God did, it must have been only for the sadistic pleasure of watching us suffer and give thanks that we don’t suffer worse. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/234 "2010-06-03T23:15:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Hey, I can suffer from missing things I’ve never had - Raquel Welch, for instance. (You can tell my age.) Plus if everyone were happy, we’d miss out on most of our great literature. So I reject the possibility of a zero suffering solution - but that doesn’t give god a pass by any means. See, now if God was benevolent, you would have had Raquel Welch. (Or at least you’d _think_ you have; which from an edited-memory standpoint is as good or better!) And you’re slipping - God could just say ‘let there be great literature’, and lo, there would be bestowed unto us great literature, prefaced in small print with “no actual entities were harmed in the making of this fully-immersive simulation. Any similarities between characters and any persons named Raquel Welch is purely intentional.” Why yes, I’ll argue against any position presented, however flippant. Why do you ask? > [@Voyager](#): > > I never said sinless != evil. Theft is a sin, but refusing to steal a loaf of bread from a rich person for your starving baby is evil. Right - you were being pedantic about my use of the word ‘sin’. Though I suppose this is a good time to note that any god that lets you get into a situation where you have to make the described choice is…wait for it… …a sinner! 😃 > [@Voyager](#): > > God swooping in is interesting. If such a god existed, we would never know anything but bliss, which we wouldn’t appreciate not knowing anything else. We’d thus have no great incentive to thank god, since we know that the more suffering goes on around you, the louder the prayers. The only survivor of 100 in a plane crash thinks god is many times greater than the only survivor of a car crash killing 3. Since God is really into us kissing his butt, god would be fed up with the situation. Since God knows this in advance, he’d never bother even creating us. If God did, it must have been only for the sadistic pleasure of watching us suffer and give thanks that we don’t suffer worse. Yeah, the Christian God seems pretty desperate for human accolades, doesn’t he? The entire situation seems pretty deliberately engineered to fabricate gratitude towards God and Jesus, and if we’re going to dismiss the notion that this was merely a method of drawing in adherents to the church then it does leave God seeming rather desperate for attention. One model I’ve entertained is that there are piles of gods that are real that are all in one big game, Vishu and Thor and Athena and Bacchus and everyone; and the one that collects the most adherents and supplicants wins. (The prize presumably having something to do with Raquel Welch.) So each tries different tactics to draw in suckers, making promises or threats, or denying the existence of the competition… Of course let’s note that in this model God isn’t omnipotent, obviously - he has equals in competition. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/235 "2010-06-03T23:47:02Z")
I still can’t understand why I should trust any human who claims to have insight into such an (apparently) ineffable and undefinable God. So much for any and all scripture and sermons. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/236 "2010-06-04T03:40:26Z")
Just catching up on responses before I go to bed - hopefully I’ll have time to respond tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/237 "2010-06-04T05:26:48Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > At one point in our history, all of the scholars, philosophers and general thinkers of any era devoted a large percentage of their research/pondering/life to attaining religious and/or spiritual enlightenment. > > That hasn’t been the case for some time, I don’t think, but I cannot pinpoint when this happened or why. Sorry folks to butt in now after so many posts, but it took me longer than I expected to find this quote from Gibbon’s _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_: > [@](#): > > The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. So, to answer the OP: what people think of religion depends very much on who they are, and always has. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/238 "2010-06-04T11:20:19Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] Let’s see - God is eternal and omnipresent. Those, I think, are important parts of the definition. Anything you can disprove yet? [/QUOTE] I can’t really take issue with this yet, no… > [@Skammer](#): > > And no, God is outside the universe. I could use a little clarification here, actually; if you believe He’s “omnipresent”, what does it mean to add that He’s “outside the universe”? Doesn’t “omnipresent” mean that He’s currently in my kitchen and on the moon while also being at Yankee Stadium and Buckingham Palace? We can prove that _ **I’m** _ not omnipresent by noting that I’m not currently at the local ice-cream parlor; you apparently _ **grant** _ that God isn’t currently at the local ice-cream parlor; help me out, here. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/239 "2010-06-04T11:23:21Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Give me a break! God’s not _completely, entirely_ ineffable. God has ineffable _qualities_. Is that better? No. Ineffability is binary. God either is or isn’t ineffable. > [@](#): > > No, I do not think we know what perfect power and perfect love look like. We don’t need to know what they “look like” to have a full concept in mind, especially one against which we can measure actual performance. For example, I can have a full mental concept of “infinity” sufficient to know whether a proposed series sum tends to infinity or not. Same-same with perfect love or perfect power. After all, love and power are human concepts. > [@](#): > > Sure he can; we just can’t understand how. All-loving. ALL-loving. It’s really not that hard - words have meaning. > [@](#): > > Why not? Because if an omnipotent, good-intentioned deity uses an imperfect instrument while stating in it that it is intending to be his perfect word, either he doesn’t mean it to be perfect (meaning he’s a liar, so goodbye all-good) or it’s only as perfect as he can make it (so goodbye all-powerful) > [@](#): > > But not very well, you’ll notice.😃 It’s not “sorta-effable”. The fact that you even make the attempt belies your own stated belief in ineffability. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373/240 "2010-06-04T11:28:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Is love ineffable? No. > [@](#): > > We don’t need perfect knowledge as much as we need perspective. If we ascribe omi qualities to god that we can never have ourselves then we lack the perspective to claim a logical inevitibility about any argument. IMHO. That’s not how logic works. We don’t need to experience omnipotence ourselves to evaluate some other entity’s claims to it. All that’s needed is the definition. > [@](#): > > The POE is a valid argument and a question that needs to be repeated , but we can only appraoch it from our human perspective. We cannot stand back and encompass all creation , how it all works , and it’s purpose. Lacking that ability we can’t really talk about a supposed omni being who has those abilities and claim logic dictates it’s impossible. IMO logic dictates that our limit is that we can personally find god’s existance incredibly unlikely because of that argument. > That’s a prerfectly reasonable position. > The claim that we can logically disprove god’s existance fails. No. The only way you can get around this is as you’ve done, by claiming logic just doesn’t, and can’t, be applied to god. That’s as may be, but it’s you retreating from the attempt, not a failure in the soundness of the logic. You’re rejecting the founding premises, not the logical argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-religion-jump-the-shark-for-great-thinkers/541373.md?page=13)