Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
More Problems With God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why believing in God is difficult
One of the big reasons that makes it difficult to lend any credence to a belief in God (and I'm referring here to the God that Christians and Jews worship) is that nobody can say much about God without finally talking in absurdities and contradictions.
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Why do you choose to be an atheist?"
A Christian recently congratulated me on having given up the religion of my youth (which he rightly viewed as a "cult"), but then asked me quite puzzled, "But why did you choose atheism as its replacement?"
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
All About Atheists
Many people have quite mistaken ideas about atheists. Usually it is because they don't really understand what an atheist is, and what an atheist is not. Which is a shame, because it's really quite simple.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)