An excerpt from old post:

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – — 180 Proof

Perhaps, but assume they exist and aren't sadistic. Can we assume they aren't omnipotent?

Can we assume they aren't omnipotent? — TiredThinker

As Epicurus concludes "then why call him God?"

What are the prerequisites of being a god? Humans create stuff that we set into motion that reach scales we cannot manage anymore. Gods need not be grand. Just have superior means than us, which isn't a tall order.

What are the prerequisites of being a god? — TiredThinker

You tell me. Epicurus' "Riddle" (linked above) suggests some essential "prerequisites. Whatever they are, they should make the entity worthy of being worshipped (i.e. worthy of being called a "god"), no?

Besides, of all the "gods" we can imagine, TT, the only (creator) ones consistent with the world as is it in all of its pitiless, raw & brutal indifference, as I've already stated, is either a "sadist god" (i.e. demon) or "fictional god" (i.e. hollow idol).

Your wording is confusing to me. Are you just asking, if there were a god of this world, where there is prodigious suffering and good people also suffer, what qualities would this god have?

No idea.

I hear plenty say that a god couldn't exist because there is simply too much suffering in the world and good behavior isn't regularly rewarded. So if there was a being one could call a god what qualities would they have to have to exist in this world? — TiredThinker

It's a good question.

1). I think It would have to be a singular object to be held account/to give an account of its existence. So we aren't all asking questions to thin air or brick walls. Essentially so it could communicate it's nature using a language and through a creature/being with a voice.

This would also mean it is not "directly" responsible as a singular limited existant for the suffering caused by say a tsunami nor would it be required to do "magic tricks" like float as it does not have all it's power available to it as a single object. It's not like a human or robot for example can logically be able to trigger tsunamis.

2). It would have to however describe how it is "indirectly" responsible for everything in existence - to provide a full true account (knowledge) of the relationship/associations between how it is now in its current form and the origins of existence (an origin story or reference to its original form and the evolutionary link between the two). As we can assume if they are really God, they should know their own beginning.

It would somehow have to convince people that despite it being in singular objective form, it's reasoning or argument is sufficient to insist that it is the same fundamental substance as the beginning. Or it has to explain how self identity might be an illusion, and that consciousness is one shared phenomenon, that there is only one aware entity behind all self identities.

3). It would have to prove its knowledge is true/accurate by doing something more predictive than anyone else. For example for seeing their own death years in advance. As we assume a correct paradigm/algorithm for reality should enable the user to forecast/prophesise the future far in advance of anyone else.

4). Finally, that all being said : that it can be observed (as an object), that it knows it's own true nature from the beginning, and it can predict the future, it would have to prove its benevolence as an object. A reason why anyone should care or believe it is God.

For example if it knows the truth (knowledge of realities true workings/nature) simply by revealing this knowledge to people who don't know it yet, it should by its logic reveal the true nature of everyone who heard it. It would distinguish lies/deception/deceit or manipulation from honesty and truth, separating them apart and thus probably polarise people into 2 factions.

People would either feel ashamed, guilty, remorseful or self critical or they would feel euphoric and delighted based on that revelation of knowledge of themselves and others as they truly are.

Others would be super angry and reject or deny the entire thing. And probably want to hold someone accountable for all the mayhem/disruption. So such a God would probably be blamed as the revealer of knowledge, and thus martyred/killed. And in doing so satisfy proof of its existence as an omniscient object (it could detail the origin of the universe as well as the future) and benevolence (that it did so at its own peril to help people realise what they truly are).

I believe these are the four qualities it requires for a God to exist:
1). Objectivity (its real/we can witness it ) 2). Revelation (it knows the past) 3). Prophecy (it knows the future) 4). Benevolence (it sacrificed itself for reasons of proof of all of those things)

I've been watching some videos of wildlife in Africa. An even bigger question for me is what kind of god/s design a world where suffering and blood lubricates everything in the world of animals and insects? They eat each other alive. They regularly die slowly and miserably and it's called survival. And animals are not part of original sin or a case of free choice unleashing evil. They were 'designed' to be predator and prey. They have no other options. Only a sick mind would conceive of such a thing.

I don’t think we can truly humanise god in terms of human attributes.

For the atheist will always deny, the agnostic question it and the faithful have little doubt.

For gods nature the bible and other holy books ascribe it many qualities

:100:

Oh I don't care about street cred. No diety gets worship from me, and thus far none have made their desire to be worshipped let alone presents known. So that isn't a requirement for me. I guess I would start with immortal, and able to set very large or very small scale things into motion.



I can't speak to original sin or if that's a real thing. But biology is just how energy changes forms. If a deity is limited you can't really be sure what options they have. I'm not even going to assume this god created us or started anything from scratch.

I can't speak to original sin or if that's a real thing. But biology is just how energy changes forms. If a deity is limited you can't really be sure what options they have. I'm not even going to assume this god created us or started anything from scratch. — TiredThinker

Well, there are as many ways of regarding god/s as there are gods. So I'm not sure we can really say anything meaningful or coherent.

Why ask if you've already answered for yourself contra every extant, religious-"god" tradition?

So if there was a being one could call a god what qualities would they have to have to exist in this world? — TiredThinker

A god or God? It's okay for small, local gods to have limited powers and be imperfect; they can even be the embodiment or representation of recognizable human characteristics. But a great big omni-god like the Christian one is supposed to - even with the three-way split, has far too much responsibility and scope for doing harm. That's why the simple, believing Christians added Mary and a bunch of saints, to replace the small pagan deities.

A creator-god in charge of the whole universe, or even a whole planet cannot be conceived as a good person, simply because nature and evolution are not moral entities.

Well I assume any such god would need to be different than that of any religion in the sense of having very serious limitations that many may not find reassuring.

So you agree that a single god with unlimited knowledge must be sadistic, or indifferent in terms of morality?

So you agree that a single god with unlimited knowledge must be sadistic, or indifferent in terms of morality? — TiredThinker

Yes, of course. Not the omniscience is the problem, but the omnipotence. Nothing moral could have that much power; nothing that powerful can be moral. Morality is a human concept; it can only apply on a human scale. Gods are a human concept and can only be thought of in human terms.

What about the concept of humans being made in the image of a god, but far short in abilities? And if a god were in fact all powerful would the term "scale" even mean anything? They couldn't then work with the very large, very small, and everything in-between at the same time without compromise to the choosen ends?

What about the concept of humans being made in the image of a god, but far short in abilities? — TiredThinker

Then we'd just have the converse of what we do have: gods made in the image of humans, with greater abilities.

And if a god were in fact all powerful would the term "scale" even mean anything? — TiredThinker

Not to the god, but to the humans. That is also true of morality: it has meaning for humans, not for overgrown gods. Beyond a certain size and power, the god can't communicate with the humans; they no longer have a language in common. Whatever the chosen ends of such a god might be, we couldn't comprehend or appreciate it.

A top hat. Because we can imagine god with and without a top hat, and god with a top hat clearly is better. And since god's sublime, he's the better of the two. So, a top hat.

And a big nose. A nose than which none greater can be conceived.

It's really big.

And a big nose. A nose than which none greater can be conceived. — Jamal

It's really big — Ying

You guys cracked me up. :rofl: