3 ms·

Well even the most lenient interpretation of the old testament leads one to believe that God is angry and vengeful, especially if not respected. I think the id

Well even the most lenient interpretation of the old testament leads one to believe that God is angry and vengeful, especially if not respected. I think the idea that God only exists if he's a nice guy is a bit of a strawman argument promulgated by atheists.

michaelochurch 16y ago
To a large extent, the "God of the Gaps" argument often made by skeptics is quite true. I say this as a deist who believes in a God. Nonetheless, it's obvious that throughout most of history, people have ascribed to God whatever they didn't understand (weather, geography, biology) and then removed "him" from the explanation once more precise understanding was available. In this light, it makes sense that people in the Bronze Age would believe in a God who's somewhat of a dick. If you believe that God is omnipotent and interventionist, and then watch innocent people get sick or trampled by elephants, you're going to think God is a jerk. We're more philosophically evolved than we were at that time, however, and can consider more possibilities that wouldn't have even occurred to people before the advent of modern philosophy circa 800-400 BC. I believe in a God who is omnibenevolent but electively non-omnipotent on account of deliberate non-interventionism. I believe that free will exists, and possibly at a very low level (even a quantum level, perhaps). Free will makes the future nondeterministic and therefore it makes sense that God would pursue an evolutionary plan that is robust no matter how that free will is exercised. And since all the suffering and "evil" we experience comes from being evolved organisms at a rather low point in our arc, this doesn't contradict the concept of a benevolent God, especially if "he" settles the score at some point in the future (e.g. by allowing us to reincarnate into better forms, either in this world after they are produced by evolution and technology, or in another).

michaelochurch 16y ago

To a large extent, the "God of the Gaps" argument often made by skeptics is quite true. I say this as a deist who believes in a God. Nonetheless, it's obvious that throughout most of history, people have ascribed to God whatever they didn't understand (weather, geography, biology) and then removed "him" from the explanation once more precise understanding was available. In this light, it makes sense that people in the Bronze Age would believe in a God who's somewhat of a dick. If you believe that God is omnipotent and interventionist, and then watch innocent people get sick or trampled by elephants, you're going to think God is a jerk. We're more philosophically evolved than we were at that time, however, and can consider more possibilities that wouldn't have even occurred to people before the advent of modern philosophy circa 800-400 BC. I believe in a God who is omnibenevolent but electively non-omnipotent on account of deliberate non-interventionism. I believe that free will exists, and possibly at a very low level (even a quantum level, perhaps). Free will makes the future nondeterministic and therefore it makes sense that God would pursue an evolutionary plan that is robust no matter how that free will is exercised. And since all the suffering and "evil" we experience comes from being evolved organisms at a rather low point in our arc, this doesn't contradict the concept of a benevolent God, especially if "he" settles the score at some point in the future (e.g. by allowing us to reincarnate into better forms, either in this world after they are produced by evolution and technology, or in another).