God proof

[quatona]

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity is so monstrous and below even the lowest human standards of acceptability (and, btw., beyond their wildest power of imagination, as well), that it´s impossible that humans have invented this idea.
Since there are humans who hold this idea but cannot have invented it themselves leaves no other conclusion that such an entity must objectively exist.

 

[Gracchus]

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity is so monstrous and below even the lowest human standards of acceptability (and, btw., beyond their wildest power of imagination, as well), that it´s impossible that humans have invented this idea.

My observation has been that nothing is so monstrous as to be abhorrent to a sufficiently self-righteous human being, nor anything so fantastic, that human beings have not imagined it.

Since there are humans who hold this idea but cannot have invented it themselves leaves no other conclusion that such an entity must objectively exist.

Well, even were that so, it could have been invented by a space alien, or a duck.

 

[quatona]

Well, even were that so, it could have been invented by a space alien, or a duck.

A talking duck, I reckon.

 

[Gracchus]

A talking duck, I reckon.

Like Donald or Daffy!

 

[variant]

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity is so monstrous and below even the lowest human standards of acceptability (and, btw., beyond their wildest power of imagination, as well), that it´s impossible that humans have invented this idea.
Since there are humans who hold this idea but cannot have invented it themselves leaves no other conclusion that such an entity must objectively exist.

Premise 1 is unsupported and even contradictory. It would mean that even more vulgar yet entirely contradictory notions of God would be more supported than Christianity.

 

[Penumbra]

The idea that there is an entity that creates a world in the full knowledge of the result that there will be humans tortured for all eternity is so monstrous and below even the lowest human standards of acceptability (and, btw., beyond their wildest power of imagination, as well), that it´s impossible that humans have invented this idea.
Since there are humans who hold this idea but cannot have invented it themselves leaves no other conclusion that such an entity must objectively exist.

There are many here and elsewhere that defend the idea, so I don't think it's below even the lowest standards of acceptability.

When I was younger, I used to think that people who believed in, and condoned of, the idea of hell were simply not fully conscious of what they believe. In other words, I figured it was easy for someone to say they believe in hell, and talk about it, but if they were to actually exist with god and see him continuously allowing people to suffer, they would realize the monstrosity behind it.

After talking with people like this so much, however, I realize I was naive, and that most of the people that believe this stuff are really ok with it. My optimism and love for humanity has somewhat decreased over the years as I learn more about what people are willing to accept and defend, and in their dark hearts, truly desire.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

This is not at all what I wanted a thread titled "God-proof" to be about.

 

[variant]

I figured it was easy for someone to say they believe in hell, and talk about it, but if they were to actually exist with god and see him continuously allowing people to suffer, they would realize the monstrosity behind it.

What gives you the impression that people are actually capable of imagining this concept and actually would support it if they were sitting there witnessing it in its full horrible splendor?

 

[quatona]

Premise 1 is unsupported and even contradictory. It would mean that even more vulgar yet entirely contradictory notions of God would be more supported than Christianity.

Yes, I agree. Following the line of reasoning of this God proof, the most monstrous god concept would be the one that points to the TrueGod. Sort of like with Pascal´s Wager.
From the top of my head I can´t think of anything worse than people being tortured for all eternity, though. But I´m open to learn.

 

[Penumbra]

What gives you the impression that people are actually capable of imagining this concept and actually would support it if they were sitting there witnessing it in its full horrible splendor?

Because people have witnessed suffering right up close on unimaginable scales and have done nothing here on earth, so why would this change anywhere else. Based on brainwashing and authority, some people will advocate for and defend anything, no matter how evil. As I talk to people that support such concepts like hell, and they sit their quoting their memorized spiel of religious dogma, they seem as empty husks, and I do believe they would stand by and be complacent amidst the evil.

I'm not saying all people are like that, I'm saying some people are like that.

-Lyn

 

[quatona]

There are many here and elsewhere that defend the idea, so I don't think it's below even the lowest standards of acceptability.

Yes, people are willing to defend a god doing this. But in emphasizing "human" I actually meant standards for human interaction (which, admittedly, was not entirely clear).

When I was younger, I used to think that people who believed in, and condoned of, the idea of hell were simply not fully conscious of what they believe. In other words, I figured it was easy for someone to say they believe in hell, and talk about it, but if they were to actually exist with god and see him continuously allowing people to suffer, they would realize the monstrosity behind it.

I beg to differ. I tend to think that "eternity" is an abstraction that is unfathomable/unimaginable. (On a sidenote: That´s why I also tend to think that people who are striving for eternity in Heaven have no clue what they actually wish for. I mean, even a life-span of 100.000 years - which is ridiculously short compared to eternity - is hard to fathom.

After talking with people like this so much, however, I realize I was naive, and that most of the people that believe this stuff are really ok with it. My optimism and love for humanity has somewhat decreased over the years as I learn more about what people are willing to accept and defend, and in their dark hearts, truly desire.

Again, I tend to disagree. In my experience people never desire the bad/destructive for the purpose of the bad/destructive. People´s needs are always positively motivated - and the bad/destructive is merely accepted as a necessary byproduct of their (often poor and uncreative) strategy to gain that which they positively desire.
Like, personally, I accept imprisoning as a societal means. That´s not because I like the idea that the freedom of persons is restricted, but because I like the idea that people are protected - and I can´t think of any better strategy than imprisoning certain persons who pose a threat to the others.

 

[variant]

Yes, I agree. Following the line of reasoning of this God proof, the most monstrous god concept would be the one that points to the TrueGod. Sort of like with Pascal´s Wager.
From the top of my head I can´t think of anything worse than people being tortured for all eternity, though. But I´m open to learn.

Use your imagination.

It's not that hard. Maltheism, the idea that God hates humanity and created them just so that it could torture them.

In this theology, God created every man woman and child with the intent of letting them live in a world made by their own suffering (and some of it's own), and then at the end condemning them all to hell for It's pleasure.

In this theology all religions are wrong and, are actually cruel jokes, making sure that regular humans don't live their short and pathetic life to it's fullest but rather waste some of their precious time on earth (their only respite from eternal torture) actually groveling, praying to, and worshiping the God that hates them.

Maltheo the terrible is obviously supported better by the original argument than Christianity.

 

[variant]

Because people have witnessed suffering right up close on unimaginable scales and have done nothing here on earth, so why would this change anywhere else. Based on brainwashing and authority, some people will advocate for and defend anything, no matter how evil. As I talk to people that support such concepts like hell, and they sit their quoting their memorized spiel of religious dogma, they seem as empty husks, and I do believe they would stand by and be complacent amidst the evil.

I'm not saying all people are like that, I'm saying some people are like that.

-Lyn

I think the suffering we are talking about is on a scale unimaginable here on earth, so that if certain peoples hells are real, their heavens are probably filled with souls driven insane by the suffering they have to abide by to worship an insane deity.

 

[quatona]

Use your imagination.

It's not that hard. Maltheism, the idea that God hates humanity and created them just so that it could torture them.

In this theology, God created every man woman and child with the intent of letting them live in a world made by their own suffering (and some of it's own), and then at the end condemning them all to hell for It's pleasure.

In this theology all religions are wrong and, are actually cruel jokes, making sure that regular humans don't live their short and pathetic life to it's fullest but rather waste some of their precious time on earth (their only respite from eternal torture) actually groveling, praying to, and worshiping the God that hates them.

Maltheo the terrible is obviously supported better by the original argument than Christianity.

Ok.
Just when you think it can´t possibly get worse...


Now: If my proof is structurally accurate - does that mean that you have just disproven the existence of biblegod?

 

[variant]

Ok.
Just when you think it can´t possibly get worse...


Now: If my proof is structurally accurate - does that mean that you have just disproven the existence of biblegod?

If it were yes, because the God of the Bible is not the most horrible God imaginable, and Maltheo the Terrible can not coexist with it.

Your proof is not accurate though, there is no reason to believe that the most horrible God imaginable is not in fact imaginable. How would you prove such a point?

And further, if we work within your logic, your point is weakened that it was easy to discover that the God of the Bible was in fact imaginable (or possibly a delusion caused by Maltho the Terrible, or some other more malevolent God)

 

[quatona]

If it were yes, because the God of the Bible is not the most horrible God imaginable, and Maltheo the Terrible can not coexist with it.

Agreed.

Your proof is not accurate though, there is no reason to believe that the most horrible God imaginable is not in fact imaginable. How would you prove such a point?

I may have misunderstood you, but in a previous post you seemed to argue - just like I do - that eternity is unimaginable.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, people are willing to defend a god doing this. But in emphasizing "human" I actually meant standards for human interaction (which, admittedly, was not entirely clear).

Standards of human interaction have differed among cultures and times.

I beg to differ. I tend to think that "eternity" is an abstraction that is unfathomable/unimaginable. (On a sidenote: That´s why I also tend to think that people who are striving for eternity in Heaven have no clue what they actually wish for. I mean, even a life-span of 100.000 years - which is ridiculously short compared to eternity - is hard to fathom.

That's what I used to think, until I realized that you don't have to accept the eternity of it if you just continually accept each moment of it. A human whose empathy has been reduced by brainwashing and blind obedience will view it as decent, and that has occurred right here on earth. In fact, one could even put it out of sight, and mostly out of mind, if they were of a certain type of character.

Again, I tend to disagree. In my experience people never desire the bad/destructive for the purpose of the bad/destructive. People´s needs are always positively motivated - and the bad/destructive is merely accepted as a necessary byproduct of their (often poor and uncreative) strategy to gain that which they positively desire.
Like, personally, I accept imprisoning as a societal means. That´s not because I like the idea that the freedom of persons is restricted, but because I like the idea that people are protected - and I can´t think of any better strategy than imprisoning certain persons who pose a threat to the others.

And that's addressed by realizing that those who profess it perform mental gymnastics to imply that hell is necessary and supported by justice and goodness. Their "need" in this case is a deity that requires perfect justice, even though this conception of justice is the exact opposite of justice.

I think the suffering we are talking about is on a scale unimaginable here on earth, so that if certain peoples hells are real, their heavens are probably filled with souls driven insane by the suffering they have to abide by to worship an insane deity.

I agree, and there's a thread on that right now in the Ethics and Morality section.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7472857/

-Lyn

 

[variant]

I may have misunderstood you, but in a previous post you seemed to argue - just like I do - that eternity is unimaginable.

The experience of eternity and the amount of pain Hell would cause are beyond our personal ability to conceive of and react to in a real and understandable way.

Words on the other hand are "concepts" which have a logical quality that goes beyond our actual preceptive ability.

I can say things like "twenty trillion light-years across", or "eternity" or "nothingness" but it is essentially meaningless to your actual preceptive existence.

EDIT TO ADD: I can still evaluate the relative terribleness of Gods in this abstract manner.

 

[variant]

I agree, and there's a thread on that right now in the Ethics and Morality section.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7472857/

-Lyn

There is ALWAYS a thread about that in the ethics and morality section.

 

[Penumbra]

The experience of eternity and the amount of pain Hell would cause are beyond our personal ability to conceive of and react to in a real and understandable way.

Words on the other hand are "concepts" which have a logical quality that goes beyond our actual preceptive ability.

I can say things like "twenty trillion light-years across", or "eternity" or "nothingness" but it is essentially meaningless to your actual preceptive existence.

But that doesn't change the ability of people to accept it, even in the presence of it. In fact, their inability to fully understand it is a tool in their toolbox for accepting it.

-Lyn