Good so we agree that there is no certainty that god exists, or that god doesn't exist so the entire issue is irrelevant to human existance. . . And just out of curiosity what other arrogance is there other than human arrogance.
Absolutely. I love to conjecture, but that is all. Yet I do not believe it is irrelevant to human existence. For we may one day actually discover information is key to reality, and that changes the paradigm. Or we may somehow discover consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and that too brings relevance. Oh, I notice something akin to arrogance in a pit bull my brother used to have. Of course I could be projecting...but that dog was so human like in exhibiting what appeared to be arrogance...of his physical ability to kill another dog. Which he did, once. Our arrogance is like I said, grounded upon limited knowledge, but also belief with no evidence. Having no certainty myself, One Mind has an open mind. I think it is a respectable position to take. An honest position.
The Gardener, who leaves the weeds terrorize, take over and suffocate the plants in His garden, is a bad Gardener.
Perhaps it just does work that way? Perhaps there is just more to it than that? Reasonable questions, I think. But it is a lovely idea you have, but does not appear to be our reality.
I agree in general, but the might-makes-right/self-interest argument doesn't exactly have to be twisted or corner-cased to be used for evil ends: Anyone making this argument is all but asking such a god to use him/her for amoral ends, particularly in the case of an evil god. On second thought, my argument works against those with a strong moral core, but doesn't work well against anyone amoral enough to buy into the might-makes-right/self-interest argument in the first place. So my second argument: An evil or indifferent god is likely to either 1) be indifferent to your worship, and throw you in with everyone you do evil to in its name, or 2) ultimately punish your worship, and ultimately throw you under the feet of those you do evil to in its name. Because that'd be the greatest divine LOL of all time -- using your greed, power lust, and cupidity against you in life in order to inflict evil on others through you. And then, after all is said and done and you're expecting the ultimate reward for your adulation and sycophantry, throwing you under the bus and leaving you to the mercy of those you screwed over in life!
Well, why couldn't an evil god be your classic megalomaniac, who will gladly accept you as long as you grovel?
Being a morally perfect robot--and living among other morally perfect robots, exclusively--would certainly not be in keeping with my own desire. Would you wish that for yourself?
I believe that it is fair to say that you have phrased that in a most tendentious way. But allow me to clarify, please (just in case you really do not understand): I want billions of people to first know, and then accept, the gospel (the former is the reason that there are missionaries). And it is really not a case of "feel[ing] good" about myself--but of merely being self-aware, rather than robotic.
The classic megalamaniac is not perfectly powerful nor perfectly knowing nor perfectly evil. The classic megalamaniac needs to do good (i.e., reward) some of his toadies in order to survive and continue doing evil to others. Not so an all-powerful all-knowing god, who can do the ultimate evil to even his toadies once their use to it has expired.
Negatives can't be proven beyond all doubt, no. If you're genuinely interested in why I say that free will is an illusion, I'm happy to share -- but I'll want you to share your belief in return.
No, you are trying to explain away the inherent evil in your religion. ...but you still think it's a good god that knowingly created billions of people in such a way that they would reject the gospel. And since you mentioned missionaries, what about the people who are never exposed to the gospel? Are those just ****ed by default? Oh, but it is. The only reason why you want humanity to have this particular kind of "free will" is because it feels nice to you. You feeling that this is kinda nice is worth more to you than the eternal souls of billions of people, whom you are perfectly happy to see condemned to eternity in hell.
Well, he might be personal and vindictive. If the god decides he likes worship and considers that a good, he might decide to let humans do that instead of constructing some other reward system for himself.
How the hell do you figure a non-personal god could be interested in or see anything? Indeed, it happens every minute of every day. What gives you the idea such a god would have a good side? And why would you not want to be on the good side of a god who is neither indifferent nor evil? Thanks for the heads up. You're certain of that? So you're open to the idea that it's not?
There really is not much to share, from my end; I simply have no reason to believe that some Higher Power has pre-programmed us to act in a certain manner. Do you?
For openers, I totally reject all religion. No exceptions. Your insistence that Christianity amounts to a "religion" is the problem here. If some people "reject" the gospel--your word--then they are not worthy of an eternity in Paradise. Missionaries attempt to spread the gospel just as far and wide as possible. (The fact that there is not a 100 percent success rate certainly does not vitiate that fact.) It does not just "feel nice"; it is the very essence of humanity. (Yes, I will freely confess to preferring (a) being a human, living among other humans to (b) being a humanoid, living among other humanoids.)
I realize you wish to pretend that christianity isn't a religion to evade the negative baggage that comes with that term, but it is pointless. By any definition of religion, christianity is one. So, god creates billions of people unworthy of paradise, then send them to hell because of it. Nice bloke, that god of yours. That's not what I asked. What happens to the people who never even hear of the gospel? So you say. Who gave you the right to determine what is the essence of humanity?
Well, I total reject anything--no exceptions--that (a) cannot be proven, by objective evidence; (b) is predicated upon ritual; or (c) replaces objectivity with mere dogma. I would not be attached to any church that does any of the aforementioned. (For the record, I am what used to be called a freethinker.) Oh, and for the record: "Christianity" is capitalized. (Or is this just your churlish--and puerile--way of showing disrespect?) God did not "create" billions of people. (Are you at all familiar with what used to be called--euphemistically--"the facts of life"?) Oh, once again: You appear to be having capitalization problems. Let me put it this way: The default position for all humans is an eternity in hell. Hearing and obeying the gospel simply obviates this. (There is no relativity here; in other words, we are not judged in relation to each other. The only alternative to an eternity in hell--other than the acceptance of the gospel--would be a lifetime of absolute perfection. Do you know of anyone who meets this standard--who has never, in his (or her) entire life, ever committed a wicked act, or even had an impure thought?) I really do not think that one needs to be "given the right" to determine what should be obvious...
Well, you clearly don't have a problem with saying things that aren't true at all. Is that accepted in christianity? Ehm...have you actually ever read the bible? You're trying to tell me that a god that creates the world and mankind with the default position that all humans are doomed to an eternity in hell is a good god? I simply cannot grasp that degree of cognitive dissonance. Your christianity sounds absolutely dreadful. Imagine worshiping a deity that creates a species with the default setting that they are going to suffer eternally in hell. I was going to say that I'm sorry for not accepting all the nonsense that you pull out of thin air, but I'm not.
Given the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the monotheistic religions, I don't see any reason to believe that we are somehow free of its creative intent.
Who knows what God is up to? Maybe suffering is good in an eternal scheme. As for your last line, I'm painting up a hypothetical. Imagine a god that has such a good side. Done.
