How come religious people like God when these same qualities are disliked when in their comrades at an infinitely smaller scale? — TheMadFool

What we tend to dislike about certain people is not their actual (finite and imperfect) love, power, or knowledge, but their ways of expressing their love, their lust for and/or abuse of their power, and their arrogance about their knowledge.

Omnipotent — TheMadFool

Just what is it, exactly, that you suppose omnipotent means? If merely an unlimited physical ability, then go think some more.

Omnibenevolent, Omniscient and Omnipotent — TheMadFool

GXO
XOX
OXD

How come religious people like God when these same qualities are disliked when in their comrades at an infinitely smaller scale? — TheMadFool

Put it this way - if 'God' was as depicted in posts like yours, then you'd have to be daft to believe. But from the perspective of religious faith, the issue is that non-believers are unable to properly comprehend what it is they're criticizing. So they project what they imagine it must mean, and then criticize the projection. Kind of a 'straw god' argument. (Mind you, many believers also seem to believe in such straw gods, which complicates the analysis.)

Case in point: Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkin's The God Delusion (which is the review that drew me to internet forums in the first place). Eagleton is by no stretch a religious apologist - he's a literary critic and academic - but he's at least spiritually literate:

Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

Remainder here, well worth a read.

How come religious people like God when these same qualities are disliked when in their comrades at an infinitely smaller scale? — TheMadFool

People identify with their gods and dictators. The god/dictator is their best self, their inner truth.

To really be in a tribe is to feel unified by this shared identification. Asking certain questions about this god is wrong (in the eyes of the group) to the degree that it manifests an absence of the proper passion. 'Only a person who didn't our god could think that way.' And those who don't love the god are enemies of the tribe, especially since they are contagious. Often we question the old god in the name of a new god, and the 'question' is really an answer in disguise.

What I find odd is the combo of love + power + knowledge as the target of your questioning. I'd like to have as much of that well-blended trinity as I can get. And I'd like people with power to have knowledge and love. And I'd like people with knowledge and love to have power.

Typically people object to moments in sacred texts where divinities are all too human (petty, spiteful, irrational.) I suggest that we reject these follies (when we do) in the name of our living gods (which may be abstractions like justice, rationality, etc.) (Along these lines, it's hard to find people without 'living gods.' Just look at what they appeal to when they criticize others' gods. And for things that aren't allowed to be questioned, things that are 'obvious' to all 'decent' people.

TIC-TAC-TOE

@TheMadFool,

If I understand you correctly, your argument takes the following form:

If nobody should want an all-powerful dictator, then nobody should want an all-powerful God.
Nobody should want an all-powerful dictator.
Therefore, nobody should want an all-powerful God. (1,2, MP)

My main objection to this argument would be with your first premise. I think @aletheist sort of alludes to this objection as well. What you want in a leader may not necessarily be the same qualities you want in a God. In sympathy to theists, let’s think of one of the main reasons one would want a God: in order to understand where the universe came from.

Is it true, then, that we should want a leader of our country to have created the country? Clearly not, since that would be unreasonable to expect of our leaders, unless we wanted the formations of new countries every generation. I think the underlying difference between a God and a leader is that, in theory, a God has been and always will be, whereas a dictator is only set to rule for (at most) their lifespan.

Thus, when making the inference that because we don’t want an all-powerful ruler, we should not want an all-powerful God: that difference reveals the key to this argument. A ruler on Earth’s power is restrained. “All-powerful” for a human being is different for an abstract Being. In theory, an “all-powerful” God should be able to do the impossible, like turning water into wine and parting seas. He has the ability to do this all of eternity. Whereas humans never would expect a leader to do that in their finite lifespan.

Happy to hear out your responses.

One of the problems with a dictator is their lack of perfect wisdom and goodness. But to have the world ruled by a perfectly wise and perfectly good all-powerful being who loves us perfectly and rules so as to ensure our best and highest interests are fulfilled is surely desirable, no?

Sentimentality and the kind of love attributed to God aren't the same thing, not even close.

And a wise person is different from an annoying know-it-all. For one thing, we tend to be jealous of greater capacity only in what we consider our peers. Did you ever feel that way about an admired much older sibling, a beloved parent, a great scientist, or anyone like that? Surely, God is so much higher that we wouldn't feel annoyed that he thinks he knows it all! And with him, it wouldn't be conceit. Any high self-appraisal he might display (unlikely) would simply be knowledge, fully justified. He wouldn't be falsely inflated.

I am imagining you going up to God and saying, "What, you think you're better than us?!!"

It appears your argument goes as follows:

1. A dictator is a being wishing omnipotence.
2. God is a being wishing omnipotence
3. God is a dictator

Understanding that your argument seems to be claimed more out of curiosity than genuine belief of the above premises/conclusions, I just laid it out this way so it was easier for me to analyze.

I disagree with premise one and two. I’ll represent my disagreement through a counterarguemnt that goes as follows:

1. God is perfectly good, omnipotent, and powerful
2. A dictator is not perfectly good, omnipotent, and powerful
3. Thus, God cannot be a dictator.

Although it can be understood that God obtains some qualities in which a dictator would too hold: (power, striving to be omnipotent although God is and no dictators actually are). It is still quite obvious as to why God cannot be declared an actual dictator.

But is He dictator-like? And if so, is this concerning to theism?

I’d argue that because of his gift of free-will and Divine love/knowledge, God is not dictator-like.
Dictators, as both defined in the dictionary and defined through real events, come with negative connotations due to their tendencies to stress personal agendas and beliefs through the control of populations by rule and force.

Although it is arguable that God has personal agendas of His own: Being good, for His people to be good, and for His people to believe in Him, I’d argue he does not control us through rule and force as He grants us will free-will, gives unconditional love, and forgiveness.

One concept that looks a little bad for God in the “God or Dictator” argument is the damnation to eternal Hell. Is this a dictator-like consequence? Is Heaven vs. Hell controlling the population by rule and force?

I would still argue no, because of the admittance to hell as a result of evil.

What constitutes as evil to God, I am still unsure. But because of His understanding of our sinful nature, His forgiveness, love, and His knowledge, it seems an act defined as “Evil” by God (a perfectly omnipotent, loving being) is an act deserving of Hell.

How come religious people like God when these same qualities are disliked when in their comrades at an infinitely smaller scale? — TheMadFool

Because "He" never interacts with any body in reality. Not the way "actual" dictators do.

One thing I will say is that Christians do take a temporarily personal responsibility. While they "do things in the name of god," they do acknowledge proximate free will to do so.. although that is why religion in the (Judo-Christian) sense anyhow, and all it's "objectivity" claims and what not don't make any sense. They constantly contradict themselves, but that is the point of it all isn't it.

Because "God" is ultimately treated indistinguishably from a "human" that never interacts with other humans and vice versa. Christians recognize him as an agent, no matter how inconsistent that is, and to them he's a harmless guy writing enlightening shit from behind the scenes. Like any other bat-shit crazy person spreading ideologies with a smirk.



Oof, this looks fun.

In order to understand this argument a bit more clearly, I have taken @TheMadFool ’s concept of a dictator and changed it to fit the model of a Roman Emperor/gladiatorial ring and God/world. Within a gladiatorial ring, the Emperor get’s to create the circumstances, knows the results of the circumstances and yet still determines who will live and who will die.
So for example, the Emperor can choose to put someone born a household slave against a professional gladiator, knowing in advance who will win the battle and who will lose, however at the end of the dual, when presumably the gladiator has won over the slave, the Emperor still gets the final say, he can choose to let the slave live or let the slave die. In this case, let’s say he tells the gladiator to kill the slave. The slave was put in an impossible situation, the second he set foot in the arena, he was destined to die.
We see an all powerful God do this, however the impossible situation exists in the form of our own lives, will we prove ourselves enough for God to choose to award us eternal life, or will we get an eternity in hell? God presumably knows as he is omniscient, therefore many of us exist just to see the same fate as the slave. However, we do not exist just for a certainty of death, we exist for a certainty of eternal death. For many Christians, this is just, if you do not follow God then you get the later fate. However, I see not how this is just, if again, like the Emperor, God chooses the circumstances, know’s the result of the circumstances and yet still determines their fate. What of the people who are born into other religions (presumably because an omniscient God put them there), where never exposed to Christianity (because God decided so) and where then still condemned to hell (because God decided so).
Like the household slave, who had no say in whether he was born a slave, with an all knowing, omnipotent God, we have no choice whether we are born to follow God or to be born to not follow God, it has been decided for us. Thus, I do see why @TheMadFool could come to the conclusion that inconsistency exists. With the stakes far greater with an all powerful God, why do we recognize that all-powerful rulers are unjust in our current reality but support it when it comes to eternity?

There are a lot of expressions of the distance between a purported creator and resulting product that are presented as what we are living through. Making it a matter of absolute identities is kind of boring. If the subject matter only involves a certain number of syllogisms, then that is proof enough that the subject of discussion is fundamentally a mistake.

So now the arguments devolve into whether the accepted inclusion of possible arguments are inclusive enough or not.

I just lost feeling in my lower extremities. The wind is playing with the trees outside.

Because "He" never interacts with any body in reality. Not the way "actual" dictators do. — Swan

Isn't it possible to form an opinion of a person from his qualities? After all it is the qualities that people like/dislike isn't it? Actually meeting a person doesn't add anything to the factuality of our beliefs about him/her unless you mean that religious people will, quite paradoxically, find themselves sorely disappointed.

One concept that looks a little bad for God in the “God or Dictator” argument is the damnation to eternal Hell. — PhilosophyAttempter

I would've agreed if it weren't for the fact that hell is a destination not just for doing evil but also for simply not believing in God.

The god/dictator is their best self, their inner truth. — joshua

What I find odd is the combo of love + power + knowledge as the target of your questioning. I'd like to have as much of that well-blended trinity as I can get. And I'd like people with power to have knowledge and love. And I'd like people with knowledge and love to have power. — joshua

I don't know. I'm not concerned so much about whether we can balance the influence of power+knowledge+love as I am about their magnitude - their infinite nature. I'll ask you to view the issue from the perspective of Aristotle's golden mean and the Buddha's middle path. Excess is considered a vice and not a virtue.

So they project what they imagine it must mean, and then criticize the projection. — Wayfarer

Case in point: Terry Eagleton's review of Dawkin's The God Delusion (which is the review that drew me to internet forums in the first place) — Wayfarer

:up: :ok:

I was actually hoping Buddhists would understand me better with their middle-path philosophy. Surely Buddha would've seen that anything omni, even love and knowledge forget about power, is the mother of all excess.

XXL GOD.. Too obese to be healthy :joke:

Just what is it, exactly, that you suppose omnipotent means? If merely an unlimited physical ability, then go think some more. — tim wood

I consider omnipotence an ability to do anything and yes it includes the physical world we humans live in.

What we tend to dislike about certain people is not their actual (finite and imperfect) love, power, or knowledge, but their ways of expressing their love, their lust for and/or abuse of their power, and their arrogance about their knowledge. — aletheist

I think you hit the right note here. Omnibenevolence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence need to be true and absent of other negative traits. Also, as @joshua pointed out they harmonize each other so the result is acceptable.

One x in the logic of : if x then dislike, is, well, too-muchness. In my opinion and I'm hoping to be proven wrong, not even the best of virtues can withstand the fall caused by too-muchness. Love is good but too much love is self explanatory.

Omnipotence, then, is not a comment on His intellect. Do you argue that maybe God is of average intelligence? Maybe as smart as me? But no Einstein....

The heavy Christian thinkers of long ago figured out that you can have an omnipotent God if you want, but you really shouldn't want. Instead you can have a benevolent God. But you can't have both. And of course the benevolent God is a problem. About 40 million casualties from WWI; maye double, 80 million, from WWII. Hitler is responsible for about 8 million murdered, Stalin maybe 20 million, and Mao, about 35 million. That's a whole heap of benevolence to be appreciated and grateful for. And the XXIst century holds such promise....

Omnipotence, then, is not a comment on His intellect — tim wood

Agreed.

I'll ask you to view the issue from the perspective of Aristotle's golden mean and the Buddha's middle path. Excess is considered a vice and not a virtue. — TheMadFool

OK, I'll try. But it's hard to think of an excess of virtue. What about being excessively concerned with the middle path? Can one be too much in the center? I do think highly of the golden mean, but I understand it to apply to certain contexts. Like a mixture of air and fuel for an ideal burn. But we are still maximizing something via a golden mean in such an example.

One x in the logic of : if x then dislike, is, well, too-muchness. In my opinion and I'm hoping to be proven wrong, not even the best of virtues can withstand the fall caused by too-muchness. Love is good but too much love is self explanatory. — TheMadFool

I see your point when you put it that way.

So I'll offer a different perspective on the 'omni' situation altogether. To me the 'omni' thing is theological as opposed to psychological. We can instead think of the infinity of God in relation to the finiteness of individual mortals. As others have written, God can be understood as humanity's projection of itself as a species. Any particular mortal, no matter his or her genius, is nothing compared to all of us as a whole. We pop into the world with necks too weak for our skulls and no language.

We are then raised into language, and this language is the stored result of millions of mortal lifetimes. In general a person of substance contributes physically and/or intellectually not only to the language but also to the infrastructure that allows for thought to be applied to the material world, which allows for news thoughts, and so on. So individual mortals are like cells, quickly dying and quickly replaced, but finding comfort nevertheless in their participation in something bigger and grander than them. This helps soldiers charge machine guns, politicians propose new laws, poets write daring lines, philosophers create systems that, for instance, 'decode' God this way --which incidentally contributes to and changes the very 'God' they describe. If God is 'really' just us, species or community on the right side of history or [unpredictable next version], then maybe God is mortal, finite, questionable. But that's another thread. The main idea is the contrast between the puny individual, no matter how clever, and everybody else who came before, here now, and will come after --and everything we 'owe' them.

I can see the appeal in "something bigger and grander than them" but is there a cost which we're not seeing? A soldier dies for his country but what is a country in reality? I'm not trying to diminish the value of the sentiment of sacrifice but I am questioning the people or thing the sacrifice was made for.

I still don't understand how this relates to theology but I gave it some thought and...

Buddhism specifically advises against extremes. Omnibenevolence is definitely an extreme - infinite love to be exact. However, the point I'm probably missing is that God knows the limits of what people can endure or appreciate. He actually doesn't love to a fault like I'm implying.

If I am understanding your argument correctly, I think it takes this form.

1. No one likes someone who strives for omnipotence.
2. No one likes someone who strives for omniscience.
3. No one likes someone who strives for omnibenevolence.
4. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
5. Therefore, no one should like God.

I find this argument quite unconvincing for a number of reasons. The reason I laid out your argument in this way is because of the evidence you provided to make the claims of premises 1-3. You said that no likes a dictator because that is someone who is wishing omnipotence. When it comes to omniscience, you cited the common example of people disliking others who strive to have encyclopedic knowledge. Finally, for omnibenevolence, you said that no one likes someone who is excessively sentimental.

One important distinction I would like to make regarding your argument is that none of the people striving for these characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence have actually achieved it. God, on the other hand, is actually omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For this reason, the inference from premises 1-3 and premise 4 is objectionable. God is not striving for these characteristics because he has already achieved them.

In looking at the examples you cited of people who strive for these characteristics, I see a common theme that also makes your argument objectionable to me. In each of the scenarios you mentioned, the people who are striving for these qualities are performing visible actions that illustrate their strides. They are publicly displaying efforts to be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. God is more mysterious about his powers and He knows that He has already achieved them so he need not present any grandeur displays that He holds them.

The biggest objection to be made here is that, since God already has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, he cannot be equated with those who strive for it and are not liked.

How come religious people like God when these same qualities are disliked when in their comrades at an infinitely smaller scale? — TheMadFool

I think an answer to your question is because these qualities ascribed to God are diametrically different that you have proposed. I think you have made an error in assessing the nature of these qualities and thus, concluded with a false dichotomy between "comrades at an infinitely smaller scale" and God. Does an infinite level of something make it excessive, or perfect? I think this depends on the essential nature of the quality or virtue in question, and the intention behind it.

I will demonstrate my thoughts by constructing our positions in argument form. I think this would be an accurate display of your argument:

1. When the expression of love passes a certain threshold (i.e., infinity), then it is excessive sentimentality and unworthy of adoration.
2. When the capacity for power passes a certain threshold (i.e. infinity), then it is oppressive and unworthy of adoration.
3. When the capacity for knowledge passes a certain threshold (i.e. infinity), then it is pedantic and unworthy of adoration.
4. God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
5. Therefore, God is excessively sentimental, oppressive, pedantic, and unworthy of adoration. (1-4)

To preface my counter-perspective, I will qualify each virtue to demonstrate its neutrality or altruism in the context of God's character, and then show how the above argument fails when the clarified virtues are reformulated into the argument.

Firstly, take the concept of love. You have, I think, incorrectly associated the concept of love with emotion. Certainly, sentimentality often accompanies love, but it is not essential to it. At least as defined by God. This may not be true for all concepts of God, but for my argument, I will consider the Christian conception of God (which includes each "omni" as you've listed above). The God of the Bible clearly exhibits a delineation between love as emotion and love as action. The most obvious example is Jesus, "who for the joy set before Him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2). Joy is also considered a deep sort of settledness that can coexist with all kinds of emotions - even sadness. But to the point about love, Jesus exemplifies love as a chosen self-giving sacrifice. Love is willed, sacrificial, and intended for the best interest of another. According to John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." In this way, the God of the Bible defines the infinite standard of love and its qualities, which are in no way contingent upon emotion.
Now consider the implications of love in these terms. No one would consider someone who willingly suffered and died in their place "excessively sentimental." On the contrary, it seems that the only worthy response to this sort of love would be extreme adoration... or perhaps even worship.

Now let's consider power. I think money is a good analogy for analyzing the inherent nature of power. The question is, does power have some quality in and of itself that makes it corrupt after a certain threshold? I think not. Consider this passage about money form the Bible: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." (1 Timothy 6:10). It is the love of money that is the root of many evils, not money itself. That is because money is neutral; it is the force behind the money that infuses it with either merit or demerit. I posit that power is the same way. Great power for good is needed to overcome great evil; indeed, more power than all the power of evil. Thus, when infinite power is paired with infinite goodness (or self-giving sacrificial love, as noted above), then incredibly benevolent possibilities unfold. With these two qualities in tandem, one could conceivably not only die for the sake of one, but perhaps for the sake of all.

Lastly, I will discuss knowledge. Consider this scenario: you are critically ill with a curable disease; all of the tools and expertise needed to enact a successful operation are available; the only thing you need is an accurate diagnosis. The level of knowledge needed to assess the symptoms and to pinpoint the exact problem and cure are likely high levels of expertise. Of course, in this situation, you would not call the doctor with the applicable knowledge pedantic, or, a "know-it-all"; the storehouse of this knowledge was essential to your livelihood. In this way also, knowledge is understood as neutral. However, paired with infinite goodness and power, it becomes an infinite asset. Now, not only can such an omni-being have the love and power necessary to die for everyone, but it has the knowledge of how to do so.

What I have attempted to do is sketch a perspective of love, power, and knowledge that fits coherently with the idea of a worship-worthy God.
Based on my discussion above, my formal counter-argument looks something like this:

6. If love is synonymous with emotion, then it can become excessive sentimentality.
7. love is not synonymous with emotion.
8. therefore, love cannot become excessive sentimentality. (6,7 MT)

9. If power and knowledge are neutral entities, then omnibenevolence makes them virtuous.
10. power and knowledge are neutral entities.
11. therefore, omnibenevolence makes them virtuous. (9,10 MP).

12. If God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then he is worthy of worship.
13. God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
14. therefore, God is worthy of worship. (12,13 MP).

Hmmmmm. A really interesting idea here, but the analogy is pretty faulty once you consider a few things.
You are asserting that:

P1) We have an aversion to people who:
a) Excessively seek power (somewhat related to omnipotence)
b) Show excessive amounts of affection (somewhat related to omnibenevolence)
c) Act like they have an excess of knowledge (somewhat related to omniscience)
P2) God is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omniscient, and thus similar to these three kinds of people.
C1) We should have an aversion to God (by Analogy)

Arguments from analogy are always tough, as the conclusion never follows exactly from the premises. I did a bit of guess work to make this as clear as I could and I think it represents your main concern well: If people like (a), (b), and (c) are not liked, then a God who possesses these characteristics maximally should certainly be despised.
I think its clear that the P2 is the problem here, as there is a significant difference between the omni-abilities of God and some dictator, schmooze, or know-it-all. Primarily, the theist would assert that God is good and actually possesses these attributes, while the people you describe do not come remotely close to omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience. Person (a) seeks power and does whatever necessary to obtain it, which likely includes some evil. Sentimentality is very different from benevolence, so person (b) isn’t analogous with God’s love at all. Lastly, we typically dislike know-it-alls like person (c) because we know that it is impossible for them to know everything. They claim to know everything, but when proven wrong, they do not admit that they are wrong, and that it what makes us dislike them. Surely if you met someone who actually knew everything, was actually maximally good, and actually able to do whatever they wanted, you would be amazed by this person. You would not attribute this being the same shortcomings of persons (a), (b), and (c), because this being is what these people are attempting, and failing, to be.