Has anyone heard an argument like this before? (I came up with it on the way to work.)

 

It is logically possible for God to have brought into being creatures that were infinite like himself.

 

Instead God chose to bring into being finite creatures (namely us).

 

God’s actions here are analogous to a human choosing to have a disabled child rather than a perfectly healthy child.*

 

A mortal parent who made such a choice would be acting immorally.

 

Therefore God, an infinite being, in choosing to bring into being finite beings is being analogously immoral.

 

Therefore God is not good.

 

(* For the analogy to work the human parent would have to be free to bring into existence a healthy fetus or an unhealthy fetus but chose the unhealthy one.)

 

What do you think? 

Views: 1313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stutz, convene the court.

You provided the jury with the evidence they need to find the theists' god guilty of dereliction  of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.

However, he could have made us a more mellow and less warlike species.

The government could insist that we all take drugs to make us more mellow as well, or to otherwise change our nature.   I remember a YouTube video on Kidstoned Chewable Valium to make kids more mellow.

I'm not sure that really amounts to freedom.  Or, to paraphrase, I think your side needs to address the full ramifications and significance of free will.  Free will essentially makes sentients co-creators with God; we create ourselves, our communities, our environment.  We choose to live near volcanoes, we choose to grow our population until we populate coastlines in the path of hurricanes where there used to be only swamp.


Parents don't give children freedom so as to learn to deal with a dangerous world; we give them freedom because they have to experience choices and results, cause and effect in order to learn and grow.  Some of those choices are poor choices, but those are important. In addition, often challenging circumstances encourage us to strive harder, or to reach out and help each other more.   A final exam in physics can cause stress and suffering, but also causes groups to form to study together, and individuals to study and strive for understanding.   A professor who gives a final exam is fully responsible for the entire situation, and chooses to do so anyways because it will lead to the most growth.  The death of a friend is sad, and yet often brings people together to renew friendships, or to focus on things in life that are more important.  Responding to suffering leads to heroic acts of love. 

The government could insist that we all take drugs to make us more mellow as well, or to otherwise change our nature.   I remember a YouTube video on Kidstoned Chewable Valium to make kids more mellow.

I'm not sure that really amounts to freedom.

Hollywood addressed that in the film: Equilibrium

The government could insist that we all take drugs to make us more mellow...

Of course that doesn't amount to freedom. That's a straw man. Valium does not change our nature, it chemically alters our behavior. I'm not talking about forcibly altering humans as we are currently constructed, so to speak; I'm talking about God, in the first place, having created us slightly differently, such that our nature itself were more mellow. You're assuming that we have a nature independent of, and not created by, God, that he would have to violate in order to make us more mellow. I'm saying that human nature itself is created by God, according to theistic principles.

We choose to live near volcanoes...

Communities grew up in the path of natural disasters in ignorance of the dangers. Nobody in Pompeii was a volcanologist. Besides, this does not challenge my suggestion that God, in his omnipotence, could have created an earth without natural disasters in the first place.

...we give [children] freedom because they have to experience choices and results, cause and effect in order to learn and grow.

and

A final exam in physics can cause stress and suffering, but also causes groups to form to study together, and individuals to study and strive for understanding.   A professor who gives a final exam is fully responsible for the entire situation, and chooses to do so anyways because it will lead to the most growth.

A professor is not responsible for the entire situation in same way that an omnipotent being is. Again, you're not dealing with the full ramifications of omnipotence. A professor has no control over the fact that humans learn best through difficult study; he did not create humanity! Given that limitation, the professor chooses the best option for the circumstances. God has no limitations. God creates the circumstances. God, if he exists, apparently created a world such that suffering is necessary—in some, but certainly not all, circumstances—for growth. Given the definition of omnipotent, I assert that he could have created it such that no suffering were necessary. To claim otherwise is essentially to claim that God can be constrained by a natural law (i.e., that growth is not possible sans suffering, or to paraphrase you, that children have to experience cause and effect—note my emphasis on "have to") that he must operate under. To hammer it home one more time: an omnipotent being would be constrained by no laws or circumstances, since he creates them himself.

The death of a friend is sad, and yet often brings people together to renew friendships, or to focus on things in life that are more important.

Would you give up this reinforcement of a life lesson to have your friend back? I think any moral person would.

Human souls are forever.

What's a "soul"??  Do you mean on the bottom of your shoe?

He was trying to tell you how a theist might argue. To them souls are real and eternal. Hence, they don't see humans as finite, rendering your argument mute in the context of their delusion.

*moot

Luckily for us, if they go in that direction we can discuss how he apparently sends most souls to eternal torment in hell for minor offences. Given that situation, I suspect most of those souls would prefer nonexistence.

Soul is also an ingredient in soul food.

Thankyou -- great answer --- now I know what a "soul" is--- or was.

x: "...it takes energy to power a machine."

Yes, and friction changes some of that mechanical energy to thermal (heat) energy.

It only suggest a god without goodness, not a god without existence.

For god to be disproved, you must argue against its main attributes. Your argument has a big flaw, and that's by implicitly accepting that god has an attribute "mind / thinking / decision making". You're not arguing against god's existence, but it's behavior.

it's a fallacy of denying the antecedent.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service