I'm game, and I'm proposing a reading or a story based on some of the stories in the book of Genesis. Understanding those stories as tremendously compressed, symbolic and poetic (i.e., not literal), here goes:

The process is already underway. Although God said it would never wipe everything away again after the Flood, it finds the behavior of humanity intolerable at this point (and this point refers to the past 10 or 12 thousand years). It has pretty much arrived at the conclusion that humankind is largely incorrigible in its destructive, greedy, selfish, sadistic and general psychopathic incapacity to care for the planet or its inhabitants. The minute "Moses" turns his back, people immediately return to making idols and doing all sorts of things they're not supposed to do. (Readers may substitute whatever figure or character they wish to in place of Moses; perhaps Jesus would be good, but that would only account for misbehavior during the past 2,000 years--and just the naughtiness of Christians.)

So the forty days and forty nights consist of conflagrating, baking and melting the earth this time: like a big pot simmering away on a cosmic stove, everything will get cooked down to mush--even cockroaches. Eventually, only a stinky miasma and some stardust will be left; God will just allow this to recycle, because God is, if nothing else, ecologically-minded and doesn't throw anything away.

As for the souls, it's a situation similar to an infinity of monkeys typing and eventually one will type the complete works of Shakespeare and Jane Austen, it's possible that some souls will be the same souls, but most will be different--perhaps just one little letter different, or much more different (depending on what the monkeys type).

If I were able to speak to God, I'm not sure I'd offer advice; I'd probably say that I totally understand its reasoning. Humankind is a hot mess.

I don't agree with baseless speculation.

I actually believe this sort of thing happens all the time without us knowing about it. Our recollection of the past is based on the particles positions and movement within our brains. Why God would remold his "clay vessel", my guess is boredom and the prayer's of those who suffer. What i view of the past might be very different of what God views as the past. The Bible says all have sinned and to some degree must accept how God view's them in light of the fact that we have broken his perfect law. Just my opinion ofcourse.

God, in Its omnipotence, can restart the world at any point. It can erase all history from reality, and start the creation again. Say It will do that, for whatever reason.

1. What reasons should It have to do so?
2. How will this new world be different from ours?
3. Are the same souls going to be given to the newborns, or completely different ones as in this, our, world?
4. Can you think of a compelling reason why God would never want to restart the world?
5, Can you think of any compelling reasons why God would want to restart the world?
6. Finally, what advice would YOU give God with regards to changing parameters between our world and the newly created new and improved world? — god must be atheist

A couple of comments about my approach to the terminology, before I begin.

First of all, technically, I’m an atheist. In my view ‘God’ is a concept, not a being. It isn’t confined by OT/NT character traits or religious doctrine.

Secondly, by ‘world’ and ‘creation’, I’m not referring here to just the physical universe in time, although I have a feeling that’s what you meant. I find the dichotomy of physical/metaphysical increasingly unhelpful in these discussions, if we are to reach any real understanding of how ‘God’ relates to ‘the world’ and vice versa. But I’ll give the mental exercise a go anyway, if you’ll accept this interpretation:

1. Perhaps if it believes this world incapable of achieving anything worthwhile, ever.
2. From our point of view: in an uncountable number of ways. From God’s omniscience: no difference.
3. That depends on what you understand by ‘soul’ and ‘creation’ (and I think there is plenty of misunderstanding on this in doctrine). I would imagine that if ‘creation’ was to start again, whatever ‘souls’ are would either be part of that ‘creation’, or part of ‘God’. Refer to 2.
4. Because despite ALL the crap and the pitfalls and the setbacks, and despite how it may look from your POV, what this world has achieved and is capable of achieving is ultimately worthwhile.
5. Honestly, not from where I’m sitting.
6. I’m hardly in any position to give advice to God, seriously. All I can manage from my position is to do what I find I’m capable of in terms of interacting with the world to achieve something ultimately worthwhile, and then hope for the best.

I recognise this all sounds very ‘Pollyanna’ - as if I’m somehow ignorant of all the pain and suffering or irretrievable destruction going on in the world. As if I should be angry that everyone else (including God) is not doing their bit to fix the problems, or else beating myself up for not doing more. But to me, that’s like yelling at the football game on TV. It’s not achieving anything, really. Shut up and join the team yourself, or accept the result.

Theorizing souls, here's your opportunity to put your mind to speculate on an undecidable, but I think interesting question.

Taking it step-by-step.

God, in Its omnipotence, can restart the world at any point.

>.< sorry, can not grant that assumption.

It can erase all history from reality, and start the creation again. Say It will do that, for whatever reason.

Okay, but only for the sake of argument.

1. What reasons should It have to do so?

Well, the Abrahamic god already did something similar: flooded the earth because it was nothing but evil.

2. How will this new world be different from ours?

Perhaps if it were intended that humans "know" what god wills for them, god "in his omnipotence" would find a better way to communicate this than sending a man to die for the sins of mankind and/or appointing an illiterate bronze age merchant warlord to deliver a message of "peace"... using a sword. These come to mind.

3. Are the same souls going to be given to the newborns, or completely different ones as in this, our, world?

Sorry again, do not grant there is such a thing as a "soul" - if everything in creation is in a state of change (ie. impermanence) it should stand that if there is anything that resembles a "soul" it, too, must be impermanent. It is hard to imagine the need for such a term if it is not actually a fixed thing, but evolves with time. Suppose the "soul" is actually ones own "body of sins" such that whatever they are bound to/by, their physical existence is a reflection of these taken to be ones "soul" which... doesn't actually exist outside of ones own manufacturing of it in the first place.

4. Can you think of a compelling reason why God would never want to restart the world?

Yes - because those who are "bound to believe" in things that are not true must continue to suffer to understand that it is their "belief" that makes possible suffering, and the only way to overcome this is to comprehend the suffering. A restart would be a get-out-of-jail-free card, and so I understand there is a "purgatory" for such people who can not otherwise help themselves.

5, Can you think of any compelling reasons why God would want to restart the world?

Not outside of "weeeee do it again!"

6. Finally, what advice would YOU give God with regards to changing parameters between our world and the newly created new and improved world?

1. Designate and strictly enforce a 1:1 masculine/feminine ratio (only two genders).
*this ensures a peace/harmony that does not end up with male patriarchal warlords taking multiple women for themselves - they become the sole purpose of war
2. Designate the following as Damnable Offenses:
i. Imposition of ones will over another (ie. rape, blackmail/coercion, assault etc.)
ii. Accusing another of ones own crime
iii. Infidelity to ones own "other half"
3. Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ie. "believe" to conclusively know what is good/evil thus polarize for/against them)

P.s. I am atheist, and I don't pretend to be a theist by posing this question. I mean to create a vigorous and lively mental exercise by this thread, I don't mean to create strife and animosity. In fact, I am prepared to stay clear away from further posting in this thread of mine, and let the imagination of others fly!

See how much more fun atheists are as compared to "believers" who "believe" in someone/something such that if it is undermined, they become outraged? How can I outrage you, o atheist? Your unbelief in a god makes you EVIL! Nevermind the hundreds of millions of dead bodies behind the theists, they are made VIRTUOUS by their BELIEF in god! And you don't believe! How dare you! Terrorist!

Ps. Saudia Arabia designated atheism as a form of terrorism. The irony is... a particular "belief"-based ideology is the greatest form of terrorism on the planet. Their "religion": blame others for what they themselves are guilty of.

Atheists have it more right than the theists - watch as the latter blames the problems of the world on the former. Hence 2ii.

See how much more fun atheists are as compared to "believers" who "believe" in someone/something such that if it is undermined, they become outraged? How can I outrage you, o atheist? Your unbelief in a god makes you EVIL! Nevermind the hundreds of millions of dead bodies behind the theists, they are made VIRTUOUS by their BELIEF in god! And you don't believe! How dare you! Terrorist! — A Gnostic Agnostic

I thought you were arguing elsewhere that we should not think interms of good and evil. Isn't it implicit in this argument that you see theists as tending towards evil?

you see theists as tending towards evil? — Coben

I promised I won't jump in, but yet I jump in. I reason on my defence that my promise has concerned the core argument.

Here, I just wish to interject that there is no difference between "bad" and "evil", other than the religions connotation. The first one, "bad", has none, the second, tons.

So, @Coben, you may want to view that @A Gnostic Agnostic did not depict a picture of evil, as you claim, but a picture of being bad.

@A Gnostic Agnostic did use the word evil, but it was in reference of a mock-up of usage by the religious. But it does not mean at all that @A Gnostic Agnostic refers to the human subjects of his post as evil. He may refer, and he does, since he rejects the notion of evil, to being simply bad people.

This is NOT to condone that I agree with @A Gnostic Agnostic with what he says in this post. All I want to point out is that we must not jump into conclusions and create Strawmans via imagined equivocation.

I got that he was presenting the position of the religious, however I consider what he is going blaming and characterizing groups.

But what is in the past is over: I am not interested in playing the "blame" game as I now understand the "original sin" as just that: blaming others.

and

You're missing the point: the point is to *not* objectively define good and/or evil.

In doing so, one invites a potential for polarization: "us" (ie. good) vs. "them" (ie. evil) and one is bound to become entangled fighting as one, against the other.

[these are from other threads] It seems to me that he is going against this here and elsewhere. I don't think the difference between bad and evil matters in the context of 'not blaming' and 'not polarizing'.

I do understand that it might be tricky to find a way to avoid this, but if it is, then it reframes his criticism of religious people and religions.

He did not say the following, but I think it is a fair read:

You religious people who divide the world into us and them and blame others are being bad.

I don't think that can avoid hypocrisy.

I thought you were arguing elsewhere that we should not think interms of good and evil. Isn't it implicit in this argument that you see theists as tending towards evil?

Could you really not sense the sarcasm? -.- It was not serious.

Serious now: only those who "believe" to know good/evil think in terms of it, and with "belief" itself being the agency to confuse them, a theist is already in the devil's playground.

An atheist does not necessarily have this problem, though they can become polarized in other ways. It is impossible for an atheist to wish to wage a war in favor of their god. Theists do this every day.

Could you really not sense the sarcasm? -.- It was not serious — A Gnostic Agnostic

I got that it was sarcasm. The sarcasm was you taking on the voice of the theist while painting them as a them. Sarcasm generally has a target, in this case it was theists.

He did not say the following, but I think it is a fair read:

You religious people who divide the world into us and them and blame others are being bad. — Coben

I hear ya.

The world consists of two types of people: the righteous and the great unwashed. And it's always the righteous who do the dividing. -- A great quote I heard in the nineteen-seventies.