05 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionIt seems to me that the logic used here is that there is pain and suffering in the world. Therefore, God cannot exist. If he does exist, however, then God is not a God of love. Do I have it right?
[i]. . . a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painles ...[text shortened]... liant writer!
Anyway, it brought a smile to my face, and so I thought I would share.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by whodeyThat's one of the arguments going on there. I think the real kicker in all of it is that God had the foresight to realize the outcome that his action (i.e. creating exactly as he did) would lead to, the intellect to design differently, and the power actualize whatever he could design, yet he chose to bring a Creation like this one into existence. Against this point, all free will defenses are irrelevant. Even giving a free will defense the most respect still leaves God either inestimably cruel or inestimably negligent.
It seems to me that the logic used here is that there is pain and suffering in the world. Therefore, God cannot exist. If he does exist, however, then God is not a God of love. Do I have it right?
I take Twain's words though not to be a 'proof' against the existence of God, but more of a persuasive appeal to our common sense that the god presented by most xian's is almost certainly made up. I find inexcusable the grandness with which xians (and honestly a lot of other types of theists) describe their deity, and at the same time, the incredibly convoluted rationalizations they dream up to excuse his behavior. It's a behavior I call "being a Johnny Cochrane for Christ" after the (in)famous lawyer of the O.J. Simpson trial.
If some one really wants to rationalize it, they can. The supernatural is an goldmine for the imagination. There is almost no discipline on the things that one can claim; however, there does come a point where my common sense is overtaxed, and I just find the whole thing incredible. It upon this aspect of ourselves that Twain's wit has the most power.
I really posted it though because Twain expresses these ideas so much more persuasively, concisely, and humorously than almost anyone I've ever read.
05 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionWhy do we then have children if the world is such a terrible place? Are we then just as culpable, if not more so, as God is, seeing as how we see things better than he?
That's one of the arguments going on there. I think the real kicker in all of it is that God had the foresight to realize the outcome that his action (i.e. creating exactly as he did) would lead to, the intellect to design differently, and the power actualize whatever he could design, yet he chose to bring a Creation like this one into existence. Against o much more persuasively, concisely, and humorously than almost anyone I've ever read.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by whodeyFirst, it is trivially obvious that if God is as amazing as his admirers claim, then no one can be more culpable for the state of the world than he. The buck stops with him.
Why do we then have children if the world is such a terrible place? Are we then just as culpable, if not more so, as God is, seeing as how we see things better than he?
To answer your quesiton. One reason why humans still have children is that nearly all of them possess an instinctive drive to reproduce. The god we are discussing though is free of such impulses. He made his decision without the distraction of any hormones.
Another reason is that, as Satan observed earlier in this thread, humans generally take very good care of their offspring. They go to great lengths to protect their offspring from the perils of nature. Of course, nature is not in the parents power to control and so some will suffer despite the parents best attempts. The xian god on the otherhand watches on as millions of his "children" die horrific and agonizing deaths. Unlike humans, he can control nature. At the very least the xian god should allow everyone to die painlessly. Certianly a real parent would do this for their child if they could.
Finally, humans, unlike the xian god, do not know their child's future with certainty. From the last point it is clear that they have some reason to believe that they can make their child's life generally enjoyable. If they did have perfect foresight though, then we would certainly observe parents being prudent about which offspring they brought into the world. If I knew with certainty that the child I was about to sire would live a life of tremendous pain and misery, more pain and misery than laughter and love, then I would not participate in conceiving it. But then how culpable this god must be! He knows with certainty which people will live eternally in Hell. Only a monstrous and selfish parent would bring such a person into existence!
05 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by telerion1. If God does not exist, then the buck stops with every parent. Twain's argument does not simply go away because God does not exist.
First, it is trivially obvious that if God is as amazing as his admirers claim, then no one can be more culpable for the state of the world than he. The buck stops with him.
To answer your quesiton. One reason why humans still have children is that nearly all of them possess an instinctive drive to reproduce. The god we are discussing though is free o ally in Hell. Only a monstrous and selfish parent would bring such a person into existence!
2. Regardless of our instinct to reproduce, we can will ourselves not to. We can even take preventative steps to ensure our will does not falter.
3. Whether humans are able to protect their children or not, they know there will always be pains they cannot protect them from. So why bother bringing them into life? Besides, death is inevitable - what (according to Twain) could be worse?
4. Whether humans have foreknowledge of their kids' destinies or not, (3) still holds.
EDIT: The point is simple - the same logic that Twain uses against God can (with some modifications) be applied to any parent in the world.
05 Apr 06
I find Samuel Clemens to be one of the tragic figures of the literary world. A mind of unquestionable intellect, an unwavering penetrating gaze, keen analytical abilities truly unequaled by any during his time and not likely to see his equal anytime again. And, on top of it, laugh out-loud humor.
The tragedy lies in his ability to see so far and remain so blind. Were Mr. Clemens had been able to humble himself (I understand that would be beneath him) to the truths of God, he would have realized his rantings were the equivalent of engaging in a spitting contest with the ocean. It is (what we perceive to be) our own strength that is typically our own undoing.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe problem with the "God = parent" analogy is that God's supposedly infinitely powerful.
1. If God does not exist, then the buck stops with every parent. Twain's argument does not simply go away because God does not exist.
2. Regardless of our instinct to reproduce, we can will ourselves not to. We can even take preventative steps to ensure our will does not falter.
3. Whether humans are able to protect their children or not, they k ...[text shortened]... at Twain uses against God can (with some modifications) be applied to any parent in the world.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat a parent is not "infinitely powerful" (whatever that means) does not absolve him of pretty much the same crimes Twain accuses God of. If I have a child, it is inevitably going to experience suffering. If I have a child, it is almost inevitably going to cause suffering as well.
The problem with the "God = parent" analogy is that God's supposedly infinitely powerful.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut, of course, since these 'truths' are actually delusions, there is no tragedy. Twain followed the argument, not some doe-eyed hope for eternal life and/or cringing fear of ceasing to exist.
I find Samuel Clemens to be one of the tragic figures of the literary world. A mind of unquestionable intellect, an unwavering penetrating gaze, keen analytical abilities truly unequaled by any during his time and not likely to see his equal anytime again. And, on top of it, laugh out-loud humor.
The tragedy lies in his ability to see so far and rema ...[text shortened]... h the ocean. It is (what we perceive to be) our own strength that is typically our own undoing.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you followers of God have really 'humbled yourselves' to the truths of God, then why do so many of you still sound so arrogant?
I find Samuel Clemens to be one of the tragic figures of the literary world. A mind of unquestionable intellect, an unwavering penetrating gaze, keen analytical abilities truly unequaled by any during his time and not likely to see his equal anytime again. And, on top of it, laugh out-loud humor.
The tragedy lies in his ability to see so far and rema ...[text shortened]... h the ocean. It is (what we perceive to be) our own strength that is typically our own undoing.
05 Apr 06
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionThis brings up a good question. Does suffering destroy our desire to exist? Is it better to have never existed than to suffer? Perhaps it is worth living despite your suffering, unless the degree of suffering is unacceptable. If so, what is unacceptable? Do we all not suffer to varying degrees? Are our lives, therefore, worthy of existence? Why did God choose to suffer along side of us in the form of Christ? Does this make him both a sadist and a masacist?
First, it is trivially obvious that if God is as amazing as his admirers claim, then no one can be more culpable for the state of the world than he. The buck stops with him.
To answer your quesiton. One reason why humans still have children is that nearly all of them possess an instinctive drive to reproduce. The god we are discussing though is free o ally in Hell. Only a monstrous and selfish parent would bring such a person into existence!
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionYes, blame God for man's evil. Seems like that has been going
[i]. . . a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painles ...[text shortened]... liant writer!
Anyway, it brought a smile to my face, and so I thought I would share.
on for a long time now.
Kelly
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrIt must be difficult for you, able to argue away the many weak logic arguments offered by Christians of lesser intellect and yet be faced with a nagging unrelenting sense of fear. I honestly don't know how you do it.
But, of course, since these 'truths' are actually delusions, there is no tragedy. Twain followed the argument, not some doe-eyed hope for eternal life and/or cringing fear of ceasing to exist.