The case for why "GOD" has to be IMPERFECT and AMORAL

All religion rest's solely on Pascal's Wager or Gambit, which states as follows...

1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry. This is nothing more than religion through fear of an eternal punishment ultimately which has never been empirically proven to exist. But,such cannot be considered a true path to "GOD" because if one believes all "GOD" is pure goodness it is illogical. Which I shall get into later...

But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

"Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII

He makes a very valid point, and is correct language in regards to words does change over time, as well do do meanings.

God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way. If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genisis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe? We'll come back to that one later as well...anywho... you are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.

Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.

God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.

God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.

If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.

God has to be amoral as well. Why?

Because since God must make only the most moral optimum choice, he has no free will. As well he is not omniscient because every choice he was going to make was perfect and already decided. So God would have to be amoral by default. Either what is right or wrong is simply because God says so or God says what is right or wrong because it is, simply. God's command for this to be right would have to set up a standard to which there is no moral reasoning for following, and then this only becomes followed out of fear. Then on the other hand God's command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethics have nothing to do with religion and never flowed from it by divine inspiration. (This would negate Moses, and the bible as a foundation for laws, other than symbolism.)

Then how do you explain evil?

"The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.

It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales. Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place"

Views: 2

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service