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: 1315

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A god without goodness contradicts most commonly held definitions of God in the Abrahamic tradition. So it's not totally worthless. Is the problem of evil similarly an argument not worth having?

___, The burden of proving a deity's non-existence is not mine.

I need only assert my lack of faith in its existence.

I agree, and this is the problem with most "atheist" arguments that pop up on this site.  "There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.  It's trite to point out that kindness doesn't play a role in everything that happens when it can be argued that intelligence and willpower don't exist beyond material reality.

"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.

Of course it is not an atheist stance. Good thing when atheists use this kind of argument they tend to say "IF there is a god, he is a jerk."

And even more specifically, "IF there is a god as described in the Bible, then he is a jerk"

"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.

This is a valid and important point to make, and one that we don't articulate often enough. However, the understanding is that, when talking about what a jerk god is, we are showing that the God portrayed in the bible is self-contradictory. So it is an atheist argument in a roundabout way, since it indirectly undermines common Christian beliefs. I think that by not finishing this line of thinking and saying that it's simply more likely that God is make-believe, that we leave ourselves open to charges of being "just mad at God".

Why are you assigning a "good" or a "bad" to a non-existent delusion?

True enough, Bo, but why are we commenting on the Giant, when we know the Giant isn't true anyway?  Like who cares?

About the Giant? Probably very few people. But if there were a billion people who not only believed that the Giant was real, but also believed that they were supposed to emulate the Giant and act as he does, then it becomes important to point out that the Giant is bad and moreover, does not actually exist.

I see -- thanks for pointing that out.  Point taken.

Good - as I post this the number of views is 666. Here is an old post on "Smith's Wager" and if God is Just. It had some good replies but is a bit out of sync as some accounts were deleted.

Just got thru reading that whole "Smith's Wager" discussion back in 2010 - & now I'm tired.  An interesting discussion ---- but I never was good at math!

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 6 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

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