Monday, May 3, 2010

Once again: Lack of Insight on God Parameters!

"No! I said my God can't make a cube it can't lift, not a Rubik cube that it can't unscramble!"
Let's revisit the issue of god "parameters" (those criteria which help to specify the necessary and sufficient condition for existence of a particular deity) in reference to the problem of theodicy.
As I pointed out in earlier blogs, the whole tableaux for defining moral action included inaction and bad faith as well as immoral actions. Thus there are sins of OMISSION as well as COMMISSION. In the case of the recent event in New York City when dozens of people walked past a bleeding man without lifting a hand, that was a sin of omission. A refusal to act.

Now, if one proposes, for the necessary and sufficient conditions of his god, that:

N) A Being-Creative Energy exists (superior to humans) - but it is not infinite and cannot know everything (Quantum entanglement plausibly dissipates both its extent and knowledge)


S) The Being can only act in limited circumstances and occasions, on account of (N)

Then one can accept the god-concept as rational in terms of the limits and ranges of omission in moral action. Perhaps it was even too limited to assist more than a fraction of the Jews persecuted by Hitler. (So it employed proxies: people-humans, like Oskar Schindler to rescue a few at a time and this was the best that could be done)

The problem is that most Christian fundametnalist aren’t prepared to score their deity this low. They want the ‘maxi-god’. They want it "all –powerful", "all-knowing", and oh by the way….everywhere (infinite). The trouble is when one goes for the “max” in his god attributes then he must deal with maximum accountability. (Not "God's" obviously, since its existence is in question, but rather the accountability consistent with its attributes as defined by the god claimant). Note here I didn’t make the rules, nor any other atheist – nor are we "meanies" or "hard hearts"! It is logic and basic consistent moral argumentation that demands that if you dare to posit a maximal, all potent and knowing god you at least be able to offer solid reasons for why it doesn’t intervene when needed for innocents, whose own free will can’t enter.

Often, as -creationist blogger 'reo4him' put it in posts on the AARP 'Is there Life After Death' forums 2 years, ago - we atheists are made out to blame "God" for evil. And not the "first sin of Adam and Eve"'

But this is tantamount to an infantile copout: proffering a fairy story, that most Catholic kindergartners don’t even buy any more. This is what reo4him extends to us as a plausible, serious foray into theodicy or an explanation for deity inaction in the moral sphere of our world. The ultimate escape clause and also non – sequitur, since there is absolutely no evidence any “Adam and Eve” ever existed. They were, in fact, the original fabrications of Babylonian story tellers in their own creation myth – and as usual, the early Christian scribes plagiarized lock, stock and barrel.

Note again, another recurring and annoying misconception: the pastor asserts we (atheists) “blame God”. No, for the fiftieth time, we do no such thing! Let me try now to break it down to make it as simple as possible for reo4him, 4ever-young and other extreme theists in that (AARP) forum:

We say that IF you declare your deity – call it "G", and insist on attributes A, O and I

A= all powerful
O= omniscient (all knowing)
I = infinite or omnipresent

THEN certain consequences ensue, especially if you include: A-L (all loving) and M (moral), which de facto includes not commiting immoral "sins of omission".

Then, to be consistent with those attributes it must at least follow its capabilities, including acting when needed, in a moral way.

Now, if you will drop all these, and substitute other limited ones (e.g. ~A or not-all powerful, or ~ O, not omniscient) or just say either you don’t know the properties of your god, or admit "it lacks: A, O, I and maybe M", we will let YOU off the hook and offer the benefit of the doubt. E.g. that you have a self-consistent deity, but a weak and limited one- which lets it off the hook for inaction, sins of omission. A viva la difference from having to explain the curious inaction of an infinite-all powerful, all-whatever god!

But to question beg by indolently trotting out ‘Adam and Eve’ as an excuse or remote argument is an insult to our intelligence and a refractory insult to yours. (By which I mean, the very utterance of such "refracts" on your mind and intellectual capacities, disclosing they are infantile at best).

Note then: we are not “blaming God” we are blaming the god-concept you offer, and its attendant level of justification-argument, assuming a consistent, moral and rational basis for your belief which doesn't exist!
There is a major difference between those two things, and until you get it, you will never ever get the motivations of atheists- or “the unsaved”, as you like to refer to us.

At the time I visited the AARP forums, a side issue was natural eveil, and reo4him made the claims that whenever humans suffer it's humankind's fault not God's.

So in other words, the earthquake that struck Haiti and killed over 200,000 was Man’s fault? Man incepted it? HOW? By an underground nuclear warhead?

Interestingly, both reo4him and 4ever-young earlier maintained it was their deity that created and designed the planet, not Man. So how can they lay blame for things like massive killer quakes (such as the one in China in 2008 that killed over 60,000), on Man? Obviously, they result from a “Designer” incapable of designing a planet free of quakes! This introduces the question of whether they concede their god is responsible for ANYTHING, though they say it's the Designer? No? Than why posit its existence at all? We could as well substitute the Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Clearly, to the good believers like reo and 4ever, this poses something of a conundrum. They well realize they can probably escape this theodicic morass by limiting the power and purview (or design capabilities) of their god, but five will get you ten this is the last strategy they'd adopt, though it's more adult and rational. NO, he's too proud and arrogant and he needs a Grand Daddy God who is tops and bigger, better than all the rest. Never mind he can't live up to the marvelous billing!

No, they'd would rather dismiss the problems of deistic inaction and its sin of omission in human affairs (not even acting to the level of a decent human parent) as the simple outcome of the mythical "wrong choice" of the mythical personae of "Adam and Eve".

Who ate an apple, because a talking snake tempted them to gain knowledge, and thereby brought down all the suffering endured by humanity from its inception: from the five million roasted, gouged, pincered or barbecued on hot irons (not to mention skewered by eight foot rods through the genitals) by the Inquisition, to the over six million Jews gassed by Hitler - including the more than 300,000 infants and small tykes simply tossed into the ovens directly. Yeppers, so we can thank Adam and Eve for the gassing and burning of innocents who did nothing to deserve it!

It's no wonder millions are self-declared atheists, with the number increasing every day! The alternative is voluntary, intractable psychosis and reality denial. What does the atheist say? Give us sanity over the delusional afterlife insurance policies of arrogant twits any day.....and twice on Sunday!

No comments: