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?
That's my main argument. Why did the believers' so called good God create us in the first place if he knew our potential for great suffering (so great that many of us would rather had never been born)? The answer obviously would be because he was not a good God OR that it's all just a made up story. I choose the latter.
If that happens to me, i would consider quoting darkmatter2525 and nonstampcollector's take on the matter. Basically, in order for Adam and Eve to be able to feed themselves plants had to die, so death was part of god's plan all along. There's also the whole casting them out of Eden to prevent them to eat the fruit of life and living forever at the end of Genesis 2.
And the obvious rebuttal to that line of thought is that god is omniscient. He clearly knew Eve's choice before she made it.
Furthermore, he created the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and created Adam and Eve as innocent beings ignorant of the consequences of disobedience. Morally, they were equivalent to children. So not only did he essentially sentence children to the death penalty, he sentenced all their descendants for the rest of time to the same punishment.
Plenty of believers would agree god is not good, at least to the human comprehension of goodness. They can always play that card, that we simply as mortal humans could never understand god.
I feel the ultimate argument against a god would be proof that the universe does not require a creator.
Robert, have you seen Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from nothing"
Who are most likely to remember your argument and give it some thought?
People with health problems their own behavior didn't cause.
I will try it on an old guy whose prostate has enlarged and shut off the flow of urine.
Why try it on a old guy, when it can work on a young guy who has the same problem? Yes, that can happen - rare - but can happen!
BPH and a few hours with a urinary catheter persuaded me.
The additional months with the catheter reinforced my conclusion.
I wish you well.
The religious person's reply is always that if God did it, then that's the way it should be. Why? Because God sez so.
Remember: God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. God has a plan and no matter how baffling anything he does might seem, there is a Holy Reason for it.
Pose this question to a fundamentalist and watch their face contort: "If cleanliness is next to Godliness, then why did God makes us out of dirt?" The jest is often not well recieved, but I enjoy it!
I've heard that type of 'argument' many times Unseen.
I think a good reply to such a position is this: 'If God works in mysterious ways, in ways you admit you cannot understand, how then can you be sure he is morally good?'