One problem cause by Religion

Post Reply New Topic

Are you saying that is evidence of His being corrupt?

----------
Corrupt, a. (Webster)
1. Changed from a sound to a putrid state, as by natural decomposition.
2. Spoiled; tainted; vitiated; unsound; as corrupt air, or bread.
3. Depraved; vitiated; tainted with wickedness.
4. Debased; rendered impure; changed to a worse state; as corrupt language.
5. Not genuine; infected with errors or mistakes. The text is corrupt.
----------

The Pharaoh *wanted* to say "No!" and God strengthened him to hold out to the point of death.

I do not have the education, knowlege, vocabulary or stamina to sift and argue down through your well-prepared list of points. So, I am simply asking for any evidence anyone might have for verifying someone's earlier statement that God is corrupt.

God strengthened Pharaoh to do something evil, just so that God could destroy Pharaoh. Is pushing someone to do something evil, particularly so that one can justifiably cause harm to that person a good thing? Well, no, it is like taunting someone. This seems to fit definition 3.

(sorry if I seemed pushy with my list of points, it is just that a statement of the problem of evil requires a God that exists in the midst of that to be corrupt, please forgive me )

I still have to stand by 8 through 11, 6 to me was somewhat superfluous in that its a fundamental building blocks issue - ie. it could be better if (in theistic terms) it was built to be that way, random chance could have some minor variability in this world but its still a rather subtle effect as human nature would remain constant.



That's why I typically don't dwell on parallel universes generated by alternate events or ideas like quantum mortality - I find them utterly useless as they just turn toward the kind of naval gazing your suggesting. I also tend to think similarly of 'A butterfly landed on the nose of water buffalo causing it to sneeze...causing a stampede of gazelle...thus half way around the world causing a tropical depression that caused a level 4.5 hurricane' type scenarios.

For the rape preventing a war, unless we're talking old Greek/Roman folklore, the two events are so unequivocal that they'd be tangentially related at best - neither party involved in that rape would have it in their conscious awareness that the action had any correlation to a war. I also somewhat doubt that my having AS spared Ireland a 1990's potato famine. Not to nitpick examples, just that it would be really bad theodicy to ascribe bad events happening to people as preventing distant catastrophes. A more direct approach - someone gets raped and they go through the emotional turmoil, they go through feeling like their whole concept of the world was molested, and the very counterweight purpose is likely the experience itself of emotionally recovering, sorting the world out again, coming back possibly stronger than before - learning coping skills that may even be vital when dealing with a major crossroads of their life in the future.

Thats not a religious problem. Its a problem that some people justify with religin, Take it out, and some other excuse replaces it.

Alright, I get it, I WAS thinking about power in terms of energy. But In order to have infinite power, the god would have to have infinite reserves of energy otherwise it would not have infinite capability(within the natural world at least).

Light and heat do actually seem to have mass, based on theoretical physics relating to black holes photons are actually now being thought to have mass, but a mass even less than 4x10^-48 grams.



Alright, what I meant to be arguing was similar but not that, I'll try to say it better.

Lack of energy limits capability and therefore infinite energy is required for omnipotence if omnipotence is unlimited capability. If this infinite (qualitatively and quantitatively) amount of energy existed outside of the control of anything it would constantly be doing everything that energy can possibly do, everywhere, forever. If string theory is correct, then matter is just vibrating energy - that would mean the energy would also manifest in an infinite amount of matter in infinite variations in infinite space etc etc.

I'm saying if the energy is controlled and used for less than this and will only ever be used for less than and is known to only be used for less than this by an omniscient being, then that is a limit, because the energy is never allowed to be in the state of being infinite and is therefore not infinite because it can't be in a truly infinite state as previously described because the omniscient being knows for sure that it won't ever be.



That is why the important part is the implied person who uses it to power a gameboy lol. Yes, it still isn't a great analogy but it was late when I was trying to think of one.

"do not go beyond what is written."
- 1 corinthians 4:6

By the way, does anyone here have familiarity with Simcha Jacobovici? He's the guy who put together a documentary on the science behind the '7 plagues' of Egypt. Believe it or not its all scientifically possible and each one consequential of the same geological mechanism.

-He- says it is, but there are more massive mistakes, deliberate alterations of the bible and contradictions within the film then there are good points....

"Jacobovici uses circular logic for his assertions. In absence of any other evidence, Jacobovici attempts to find a real world explanation for a Biblical phenomenon. Then, from the fact that a phenomenon could be caused by a certain event, Jacobovici surmises that a Biblical phenomenon was caused by exactly that type of an event. " higgaion

"Jacobovici's claim of a shelf collapse, leading to decrease in water levels, immediately followed by a second natural disaster, a tsunami, leading to restoration of water levels, has absolutely no geological evidence, whereas such a calamity would have led to wide-spread devastation across the entire region, not just localized to one lake, and left a huge geological footprint. It would have likely also been recorded by eyewitnesses. There's no record of anything of this magnitude happening anywhere. Also, while Jacobovici claims that his explanation is 'exactly as the Bible describes', the Bible actually describes a wall of water on each side of the Hebrews, which is the exact opposite of Jacobovici's explanation." also from higgaion

"Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University on his Web site called "Higgaion" claims that while a single supposition is not an invalid tactic, Jacobovici uses a chain of supposition to support each subsequent claim, often using commercial breaks to move from "it could be possible that" to "now that we've established that," an invalid rhetorical trick." - wikipedia, but source is obviously higgaion

While Jacobovici talks of a palpable ash cloud in Egypt, 800 kilometers from the volcanic eruption, later on in the documentary a geologist backs up the claim that ash reached Egypt by showing that only a microscopic amount is found in the soil, which would not only not create a palpable cloud, it would be altogether invisible to the naked eye.

A majority of the historical reference is wrong as well.

6 isn't superfluous. 6 is a very controversial hypothesis. As if the world could be made better without loss, it pretty much follows that God is morally reprehensible for arbitrarily refusing to do this as an omnipotent being doesn't face costs. I don't see any reason AT ALL to see 8 -11 as problematic, as 8 & 10 seem pretty basic to me, and 9 & 11 just follow from them. I would be hard pressed to think of a valid argument against 8-11.

In any case, if human nature is the problem, then how come a change cannot impact human nature? It is not as if there is any "given" in creation, except for the necessary truths which aren't empirical, there are only trade-offs.


Well, techstepgenr8tion, evaluating the idea of God is impossible without arguing for the expected nature of reality if God did or did not exist. God is a very metaphysical hypothesis. In any case, the notion I am invoking in 6 is cynical towards this kind of navel gazing, as it admits the simple case that what would seem to make the world would do so.


Honestly, I don't think that the notion that you put forward is very credible. I mean, all of this talk of "tougher person" seems to ignore the number of people who are just damaged by the bad things that happen. People who become embittered. People who become suicidal. And so on, and honestly, it really seems as if one cannot just clearly say that everyone who suffers really does get better. Additionally, I doubt that greater emotional strength would be the result, instead, what is more likely going to result is a set of complexes that will haunt the person throughout life, like uncomfortability in certain mundane circumstances, avoidance of certain reminders, etc. I mean, it is easy to point out that some people get stronger, but frankly, I think those people are far outweighed by people like the Vietnam vets who were scarred by their experiences.

No, God wouldn't. What if God's power is to alter the laws of physics? That couldn't be a matter of energy, because energy is still within those natural laws, but it is a power that is logically possible.


But if God does not get his power from energy, then there is no problem. Given that most conceptions of God are non-physical then saying God has physical energy just seems silly given that power does not have to be physical power, but rather can work in a large number of other ways.

I think you are making too many assumptions about the nature of God's power that would not be accepted by most theists for your point.


The person who uses the battery is unable to access atomic power with any great ease, especially not to break apart the atomic bonds in a battery. So, I still don't see your point. However, if you are conceiving a physical God when theists think there is both a natural and non-natural world with qualitative differences, then you aren't addressing your opponents.

Do you have any evidence of what you have stated, Awesomelyglorious, or are you merely speculating?

TheOddGoat: Do you have any evidence related to your statement that God is corrupt?

Evidence? Well, Exodus 9:12 can be seen as evidence quite clearly that God strengthened Pharaoh to do something evil. Exodus 9:16 "But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. " is evidence that this strengthening Pharaoh to destroy him.

Paul also references these passages in Exodus in Romans 9 in a manner that can be argued to make the same point:
Rom 9:17-18;22 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18 ) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,"

So, no, I have not gone beyond what is written. In some circles, what I am positing is the standard belief, I just would attack their philosophical justifications.

Additionally, I would think that a fuller analysis of 1 Cor 4:6 is just attacking idle speculation for the purposes of justifying people. It is not attacking valid hermeneutics, most of which require some background information.

1Co 4:4-6 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (5) Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. (6) I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Frankly though, one does not need the Bible to attack ad hoc suppositions.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 12 Nov 2009, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But I'm saying for it to really justify a prefix of "omni-", his potency/capability would need to be physical AS WELL as anything else. If there is no infinite energy in nature then he is not capable of mustering infinite physical energy in nature and is therefore not infinitely capable in all possible ways. Energy cannot be created or destroyed in nature - if he has to change this law of nature in order to do something then he is not capable of operating in the way he wants under the laws of nature and is therefore not omnipotent.

Do you have any evidence of what you have stated, Awesomelyglorious, or are you merely speculating?



The evidence for the god of the bible being corrupt is in your post.

The god of the bible forced a pharoah to act in a way that would end in the pharoah being punished by the god who forced him to act in such a way.

It can't be said that he didn't because the bible demands that you take its writing at face value and therefore the god of the bible directly and deliberately forced a human to break rules that he made up in the first place.

This effectively means that god enacts meaningless violence as and when he feels like it, something of a corrupt pass time.

This video illustrates very strongly an aspect of god's corruption:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgDDglSq2s[/youtube]

There are 35 more from this person alone demonstrating the christian god's corruption in a much more concise and articulate way than I can.

But.... I'll make another clumsy analogy.

Let's say a police officer tells you it is illegal to stand on one leg and the punishment for doing so is death.

You ask why and he replies "because I say so and I am the one who makes the rules".

You as why he is the one to make the rules and he replies "because I say so and I am the one who makes the rules".

He then psychicly(sp?) -forces- you to have an *uncontrollable* urge to stand on one leg.

You do so and are killed.

I would put forward that if you don't believe this would be a situation you would find to be perfectly moral and would want this to be a microcosm of the world at large then you disagree with god's values and find him to be a corrupt judge.


I'm also trying to say that, assuming god exists in our world, he cannot be truly omnipotent and is therefore a liar.

Also, the character of god changes between the old and new testament... a corrupt thing may be described as something "made inferior by errors or alterations".

Another corruption based on this definition would be that, assuming you don't read hebrew (or whatever the original text was written in, sorry if you do), you are reading a translation. Translation allows gaps through ambiguity of meanings - leading to corruptions in meaning. Therefore the god you are imagining when you imagine the god of the bible is necessarily corrupt because he is being imagined from corrupt sources.

Here's something I just thought of with my caffeinated brain at 00:28:


Is god capable of proving to me that he is infinitely capable?

I think no. I cannot comprehend infinity, therefore I cannot fully comprehend something that is infinite. In order for the omnipotence to be proved to me it would need to be demonstrated and comprehended by me. I would not be able to comprehend the omnipotence without god making me able to - but if I was made to be able to comprehend infinity I wouldn't be me and so god is incapable of proving to me that he is infinitely capable.... therefore he is not infinitely capable.

Here's something else.

Is god capable of proving to a stone that he is infinitely capable without altering any of the properties of the stone?

No, it doesn't. "omnipotence" is just the ability to do anything that can be done. This does not say anything about how one must do what can be done.

TheOddGoat, there are no "laws of nature" per se, there are only physical regularities that we notice. So God doesn't have to change anything in order to create or destroy energy, because there is no reason why God cannot create or destroy energy.

Additionally, most definitions of omnipotence used do refrain from invoking logical impossibilities. Why? Because nonsense is nonsense no matter what.

Finally, is the heart of the matter the strict definition of omnipotence? Or is omnipotence more of a term applied to God later by philosophical and theological minds? If we replaced all instances where one uses the term "omnipotent" with "maximally powerful", then what do we lose theologically other than something that some critics trip themselves up over?


Is a discussion on the metaphysical property of omnipotence ANYTHING but speculation??? NO! It is all mere speculation, where evidence CANNOT exist. So, if you ask me for evidence, then why don't I ask you for evidence?

I think the argument may be that goodness would be worth 'less' if there were fewer pressures to the contrary. Otherwise there's not a lot else that could get in the way. I'm a bit hard pressed to think of controversy for six aside from functional fixedness of thought.



I'll go over these again:

8 ) Good beings do not cause gratuitous evil
- We have know idea what it is we're going through any farther than our own lense on the world. Ultimately I don't believe its this simple.

9) Therefore God is not good. (from 7 & 8 )
- problem goes back to premise 8.

10) God is defined as good. (Premise)
- he's defined *if* we created him. I also think of something like astronomy; the star Regal doesn't actually have a name, the only place 'Regal' has anything to do with it is in the human language and our need to tag and label. For us to claim that God follows the rules that we define him with is really saying we're heirarchically above him, as in he didn't create us or the universe - we created him. The later being an atheistic premise isn't a problem when put through an atheistic logic chart but, mixing theistic and atheistic are pulling premises from completely different a priori. This is the crux actually of why I see 8 - 11 as out of place

11) Therefore God does not exist (from 9 & 10)
- the problem with this one is that its based on 9 and 10.




We could, as a sedentary society, have microevolution which would feed into better and better pro-societal behavior, however we had many milennia of a very different sort. Battles over land, primative weapons which meant that animalistic barbarism was needed as we were something like talking animals trying to knock reason and order into other talking animals. That was a product of our environment and things that were as they were, things much broader and larger than who became king in what province, what wouldn't happen if leader x wasn't assassinated or if kingdom y hadn't lost a major battle and been overtaken by kingdom z. The problem with changing human nature in that environment is this: it was the most optimal thing. To replace that with a different optimal set of minds or behavior it would have taken erasing the kinds of needs that would have had us killing eachother or, the same needs that animals inherently kill each other over to this day.



Your correct to say that it needs to be compared side by side, however to lay out several bullet points and premises that take theism as fact and then use another few premises that take theism strictly as anthropology - the results aren't going to be meaningful because of the pollution in the variables.



I should probably have been clearer on this - more lived/experienced in an eternal sense. If we are to take the theistic blick on things, especially in the possibility that we may have multiple lives, we're becoming intimately familiar with cause and effect. It could well be that personal experiences, both good and absolutely terrible, are what make an identity, make an individual, trying to also think of this from the perspective of - if I was all by myself, could do anything but had nothing to relate to or reflect upon, and if my very thoughts could bring things into reality, this tiny crumb rapped in seething mold under a heat lamp - essentially in the middle of nothing - might be my own psychological experiment to figure out my own nature. I might want to bring more beings into my existence just for the sake of having company. I won't claim that these are the only possibilities, there could be many more, though from only knowing what I can immediately see those are some of my best guesses right now and, of course, knowing that I can't see past the physical reality that I live in it also means that even my best assumptions will be severely limited without perspective of the exterior or, certainly as well, whether or not there is an exterior.

I had mixed thoughts on it, mainly that when watching something like that - unless your extremely well versed in the actual placement of the evidence, anything can seem plausible. It could well have been a pile of work, though it seemed like an interesting theory. The siezmic activity and its historical footprints, as you mentioned, would likely be the most credible debunk, as for the writing I'd definitely see other cultures with written ability documenting Santarini's explosion - though the gases under water causing progressive damage to wild life and people; that would be localized to regions that were situated as such; that again though I think would we be geologically debunked by examining submerged rock layers to see if they could have housed pressurized gases.