Why should we automatically rule out the possibility that God is a douchebag?

Exactly what I am saying. Why should we assume we have a direct line all the way to the top? Doesn't that seem just slightly lacking in imaginative scope?

Do you know what a prophet is?

because the whole point of god is that we depend on him for things we experience. how could things like logic, the self, life etc be the product of some negative god.

Only faiths in personal gods have this problem, you will only get apologetics and "humans are shit tho"; pantheist, impersonal, principle-like god is better

Why even make any faggots in the first place? Either make humans that aren't inherently flawed or don't make them at all. What a brainlet

Why should we automatically assume that God should be good/bad? Shouldn't God be above our morals? If he isn't why call it God? And if everything he does is good does it mean doing nothing for something evil we can prevent is good too? If God bind by "good" does it mean "good" is above God?

What good is love and worship if it comes from robots with no free will?

Indeed, it does not suffice to merely subject us by force, he wants us to be willing and happy slaves to his arbitrary will

According to whose morality?

Instead of thinking about it in moral terms one could think of it in terms of various “interested parties”. God has his own interests that may not necessarily coincide with ours. Thus, humanity should strengthen itself so that we can have more leverage in our relationship with God, and perhaps renegotiate the nature of that relationship from a position of power. Or we could sever that relationship entirely, or perhaps even overthrow God, in the way that Zeus overthrew the Titans.

It's this weird sort of might-makes-right concept that inevitably comes with believing might made the capital-w "World" itself, presumebaly including morality etc.

Not that I disagree with the concern you're raising, but it's an answerable question.

Easy there, these people don't think that far.

>capital-w World
>morality
was Patrick Star going from M to Wumbo a convoluted joke about the is/ought distinction as it pertains to theology?

Attached: wumbo.png (498x347, 311K)

>Or we could sever that relationship entirely,
we've already done that, not entirely but in a really significant way.

>God is a douchebag?
A douchebag wouldn't take the time to create a universe.

Because virtue and empathy are a function of order, complexity, and intelligence. Literally only edgy brainlets argue the whole 'genius psychopath' meme. So if there is a god and he is smarter than humans he is infinitely kinder than humans. The problem is that kindness manifests itself in incomprehensible ways from our point of view. It's sort of like if you wake up from a nightmare you'd laugh it off as being so silly, similarly we might end up realising how all the suffering on this planet, as bad as it is, is ultimately a trifling in comparison to the sheer magnitude of goodness.

Can't be or not be a douchebag if you're not real

marry me pls

>the Christian god can't be evil because it says so in a book written by his slaves and sycophants who literally sacrificed animals and their children to him.
Yeah and the North Korean ruler can do no wrong. How do I know? It says so in the government pamphlets that were mailed to every citizen last week.

Rule it out? The Bible proves it over and over and over. If God exists in anything like the biblical form (that is, if we take the Bible as evidence), he's a giant nasty petty douchebag. Besides, it makes sense of the world much more effectively.

So every Minecraft player is guaranteed to not be a douchebag?

so you're saying morality is subjective?

Attached: Channel-4-News-calls-in-security-after-Cathy-Newman-is-subject-to-a-torrent-of-misogynistic-abuse.jp (1200x900, 94K)

The serpent tricked the first humans(a perfect creation) into eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, dipshit.

>haha dude, God is kinda like Dr: House MD

Of course it is. That's too fucking obvious to waste time debating.

The conception of god as an all powerful all knowing perfectly moral being exists only in the Christian tradition. The Greeks and others were perfectly fine with admitting that their gods had limitations, and many of them lacked virtue. Even the bible depicts Yahweh as experiencing anger and regret and even tiredness, showing that the early abrahamic conception of Yahweh was a lot different to the one we have today. We even see him lying to Adam and almost losing a wrestling match with Jacob, among other things.

No he didn't lmao. The serpent told Adam and Eve the truth: if they eat of the tree they won't die on the same day like god says and instead will gain divine knowledge of good and evil. What happened? They ate of the tree, didn't die on the same day, and gained divine knowledge, to the point god lamented that man has become "like us"; i.e. Man has become like god. This is the only honest reading of the story, plain and simple.

Gods are ancient aliens, they are somewhat genetically better than us but the big difference is that they have high technology and we don't, that what makes humanoids into gods

Human beings are the most intelligent species on earth and they are also the cruelest. Where did you come up with this shit lol

>god claims that he created the universe
>therefore he actually did
why would you believe him?

Ditheism is better than Monotheism.

A minecraft player generates an universe through the game. He didn't make the game, he didn't make the computer, he didn't di anything but run the game and play it.
Because He's the reason we have rational discourse so i either believe him or i might as well go live in a cave.
The point is God isn't a superpoderes human, he doesn't need anything from us yet He still made us.

Other way around, salvation isn't a keepsake of God's approval. Everyone is saved or everyone is damned.

Somebody who says that they are this mythical direct line to god. Did you know that I'm a prophet too?

Is this actually just a morality based versions of the "can god create a rock not even god can move?" problem? "Can god create an ethical system under which he's a douchebag?" Seems like he has less free will than even humans do.

ITT: God is my Sunday school teacher who only the likes the good students and gets very mad when you disobey him.
This thread is an absolute theological morass. Everyone quotes or near-quote refutes everyone else with personally meaningful reasons, referencing scriptures loosely if at all

>He only cares about the elect
You're an heretic and neither Scripture nor Tradition supports your deranged views. Have fun explaining yourself before the Throne of The Lord when you die.

>Because He's the reason we have rational discourse
how do you know?

>Look mom I'm just like soooooocrates!
Tell your mom that next tuesday is fine, we'll make do with box wine If she doesn't want me to spend too much money on a bottle. Last time she made a ruckus.

Take the Daoist/Zen green mountain water pill OP. Sure, you'll burn in endless agony forever and ever when you die of course.

I'm just supposed to believe your claims without examining them? I see no reason to believe that the entity described in the Bible and Quran is omnipotent, creator ex nihilo, eternal, "the source of rational discourse", or any of the other appellations customarily attributed to him. Nor do I see any reason to conflate the abstract notion of God as "the Good" or "the One" with the entity described in the Bible.

>you need to be washed in the blood of the lamb
that sounds unclean to me

We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals. Moreover, some substances are better than others, since living things are better than non-living things, and animals are better than plants, in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged.
"There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being."

Attached: aquinasbotticelli.png (400x500, 299K)

OT God is Brad
NT God is Chad

He obviously means the Biblical creator-God, not "the greatest being".

Because Platonism proved that God is necessarily good. Read Proclus On Evils.

So your point is that God isn't virtuous enought for you to be The One, The Alpha and Omega? Is This the point?

>>Because He's the reason we have rational discourse
>how do you know?
Because he's the reason, "We." That should apply to all the flavors of god in the big three. If anything's unknowable in that statement, its whether or not rational discourse ever existed.

On the contrary, he's also the reason we have irrational discourse. And user isn't really using the statement to accomplish anything.

I mean if something claimed to have created the universe, and you doubted it, presumably you'd also doubt it was god.

I don't know about that chief

>Being smart is sufficient to be moral
Yeah I don't know about that, chief

I'm not interested in "The One" right now. I'm interested in the Biblical God. Metaphysics is a separate issue, and I don't have a settled view on which metaphysics I subscribe to.

Does god virtue signal?

>Because he's the reason, "We." That should apply to all the flavors of god in the big three. If anything's unknowable in that statement, its whether or not rational discourse ever existed.
>On the contrary, he's also the reason we have irrational discourse. And user isn't really using the statement to accomplish anything.
I have no idea what you're saying here.
>I mean if something claimed to have created the universe, and you doubted it, presumably you'd also doubt it was god.
Not necessarily. Not all conceptions of god are creator-gods. The Biblical god might be a lesser entity that made absurd claims for itself in order to get more worshipers.

>I'm not interested in the one right now
Well though luck then because You're asking How I know that the God of the Bible is The One.

The fact that you're still thinking in terms of "God is kind" or "God is a douche" means you fundamentally don't understand what the person you're replying to said. Talking about the Prime Mover, the Ultimate Creator, there is no "kind" or "douche"; those are human concepts. An all-knowing, all-powerful being isn't going to be either of those things.

>the being that literally created time and space is equivalent to Kim Jong Un
room-temperature IQ retard

Absolutely. Look at Jesus Christ's sacrifice. An allegedly omnipotent god """sacrifced""" himself lmao

>Well though luck then because You're asking How I know that the God of the Bible is The One.
No, I was asking how you know the Biblical God is the source of rational discourse, which you declined to answer

Jesus isnt holy father.

Wow. I've never seen a brain This small before.

>Not all conceptions of god are creator-gods.
I'm pretty sure the most prominent ones are, and that these are the ones most of the capital G people in the thread are designating.

Could Jesus have died permanently? Was there any such risk?

I think we're mainly discussing the Biblical god who CLAIMS to have created the world. It's a pretty absurd claim given that he claims to have done it about 6,000 years ago, which leads me to suppose he would be lying.

Well, He's the source of rational Knowledge Because He's the One, the unmoved mover and so every argument moves either towards Him or in the opposite direction.
I know He's the One because he knows me better than How I know myself.

based

>he knows me better than How I know myself.
How?

Ah, so you mean your issue is with what we'll call a self-proclaimed god in the bible, not "whoever god is." That makes more sense.

Fine, if that's where you want to take it, then let's here your reasons for identifying the Biblical god with "The One"

It's irrelevant to the fact that he chose to live as We do and partake of the curse of mortality. In doing so he took all sin within himself, so it was a valid sacrifice.

Completely dishonest. Goodbye.

It is relevant. You and me are not omnipotent gods. He allegedly is.

>Completely dishonest.
Much like your God lol

Within the spectrum of human behaviour, if you control for environmental factors like childhood environment and malfunctioning limbic systems, increased cognition and healthy brain function is associated with increased creativity, empathy, and kindness. Now this isn’t the superficial kindness brainless use to ingratiate themselves with their superiors, no kindness in the sense as an instinctive aversion to destroying or harming something.
Honestly just observe your environment, look at children as a great example, children that are developing faster and more rapidly will often treat animals, objects, and even other people with more conscientious and tender care. Because we live in a capitalist society we reward people who can be really good at specific tasks, like doctors or lawyers, and the competitive nature means sociopaths will often be more successful hence this has created a psychological bias for this idea of the brilliant psycho meme. In practice we’ll rounded bright people have an internal aesthetic preference for beauty and an aversion to ugliness and pain.

Studies have shown that children who lie will tend to have higher IQ when they grow older

maybe they just lie about it

Attached: 1563322243084.jpg (1875x1420, 1.18M)

>Within the spectrum of human behaviour
Yeah. Sure. But, outside the spectrum of human behavior, no. Last I checked, cutting your sample space like this to guarantee a certain conclusion is called P hacking, cherry picking, etc.

Does "god is all powerful" mean that all that which is possible, can be done by god? Or does it mean that god can do all that which is possible, and no more? The former seems self-contradictory, but the latter seems like a vain tautology which doesn't really constitute all-powerfulness: a rock can do all-that-which a rock can possibly do, but not other things, for example. It leaves impossibilities, rather than declaring nothing is impossible. In god's case, god covers all possibilities everywhere, but is this totality simply due to possibly being bounded, rather than god being able to do what he wants?

>due to possibly being bounded,
to possiblity being bounded*

God didn't think that hard when he gave us the Bible. He was kind of just hoping we would believe him just cause.

The better question is, if good is a douchebag, does that mean you should change what you think a douchebag is?

I think it means all that God can do is what is possible.

why continue to think in these obsolete terms? you're trying to revive dead discourses, we're so far past thinking about "God" and theodicy
obviously the world as it is now and has been for all of history is extremely bad and must be radically changed, this should go without saying at this point
the question is formulating a radicalism and implementing it, as well as how to live with our condition in the meantime

Presumably god would exist in all possible worlds, if any at all. He's omnipresent.

Presumably god has all capability. He's all powerful.

Can god possibly-not exist? If so, there is a possible world he is absent from, thus he is not omnipresent. If not, there is something he cannot do, so he is not all powerful. Furthermore, not being all powerful entails there being things god cannot do; in other words, possibilities he cannot access. Thus, he is again not omnipresent. Seems fucked either way.