Easter! What is wrong about god?


Happy Easter! :D

When talking about god you usually have a problem: It is difficult to find out what the believer you are talking to does exactly mean with the term “god”. He may talk about some properties, but also about myths (like the Bible – really bad, many Christians etc. do not try to get out what the fundamental metaphysical entities are by thinking independently, not reflecting about epistemology, but just trying to interpret myths in abstruse ways, but that is off-topic). It is wearisome to come up with counter-arguments against all the aspects. But I think there are some fundamental arguments working for 99% of the imaginary beings called “god”.

There is no absolute morality

Many religions try to justify certain morality with their god. But seriously, why should the most fundamental entity in the world care about morality? What have metaphysics to do with ethics? For “god”, the utmost being, there is no “good” or “bad”. Morality got established through history, the society determines morality, there is no absolute morality, we should have known that since Nietzsche. Of course extra-terrestrials would not share our moral standards, and wo could not say we would be better. Metaphysics try to explain the being, metaphysics may influence our way of thinking, but it will certainly not be able to justify certain rules. Moral absolutism is just absurd, and I will neglect all notions of god implying absolute morality, because they are just wrong.

God does not love us

The omnipotent, omniscient being certainly does not love us in any way being correlated with human love. We do not live in “the best of all possible worlds”, some random quantum-decisions can change something, there could have been small variations which would have prevented a cancer and a useless death. So better worlds are possible, thus we do not live in the best one (it may not even theoretically exist, but that does not matter).
The myth about free will is just nonsense, there is no free will, there is time destroying anything, each state is followed by the next one, there is will, but it is not “free”, it is just there. And why should somebody test the beloved person using a brutal game calle “life” – keep in mind that god is perfect and should love us perfectly? That is nonsense, a omnipotent, omniscient being is possible as theoretical construct, but it will not love the humans, though it may love fundamental forces.

Those arguments are not too specific, that is very useful, and I do strongly believe in the non-existence of those gods. But what is about the 1% of immune gods? I do not have a problem with them, you can call whatever you want “god”, and if you believe in your PC or Qualia and call them “god”, that may be strange, but of course there are PCs and there are Qualia, although I would choose different terms.

3 Responses to “Easter! What is wrong about god?”

  1. Trurl Says:

    Well, every point you make in your post is in principle worth a discussion, but there’s a central problem: your style is a clear argumentum ad ignorantiam. Don’t get me wrong — as you probably know, I for myself do not stand very close to religion. I consider it nonsense. But my reason is another one than yours. You simply *claim* that there is no absolute morality, and you simply *claim* that the most fundamental entity would not care about morality. Really? Well: I think this is what YOU would do if YOU were the most fundamental entity! ;)

    Your argument against the “best of all world” is not valid. You of course know that a globally optimal solution can involve locally suboptimal subsolutions. So, I consider the existence of cancer not as an inconsistency with Leibniz’ argument.

    You say that time destroys anything. Well, on the first sight, this is true. Vanitas, vanitas! Right? :) But think about it:

    a) Consider two world states A and B, with B after A. A affects B. State B would look different if state A would have looked different. So, a great deal of information that was inherent in A lives on in B. All further states after B are also affected by A (affect is transitive), so A is not really “destroyed” by time. Its information lives on. After very, very many generations of states, it could be that the information of A has been “smeared” beyond recognition, but this must not happen, it depends on the “strength” (or “significance”) of A’s information.

    b) I think it could be that “time” is just a matter of perception. Why do you emphasize of all things time, why not space?

    c) Physically spoken, it is not completely clear what happens with the past. So, may we really assume that every moment gets “destroyed” by time?

    d) Could it be that you mistake free will for omnipotence? Let us assume you are right and time destroys everything, even (and especially) information. Then, maybe, I cannot do what I want because the information I need gets lost. So, no omnipotence for me. (However, this would require huge amounts of information, since time does not destroy all information immediately.) But why couldn’t I want what I want? This is free will. Time destroying everything doesn’t imply my theoretical wishlist is bounded by certain constraints. Maybe it is bounded, sure, but is this because time annihilates everything? If yes, I would like to learn why.

    e) Omnipotence is made impossible by many factors, not just time. But which factors hinder free will? If I think about this, I come to the following conclusion: Consider the class of all wishes W. Now, assume that my will has domain D with D a subclass of W. Even if D is a proper subclass of W, I can freely choose my next wish within D. And even if D is very small — maybe it contains just 2 elements — I can freely choose between them. So, in this sense, my will is free. There are probably wishes I cannot have, since they are not contained in D; in this sense, my will is not free. Hence, if we define “free” by “all elements of W are wishable”, then free will gets hindered by the bounds of this domain D emerging in my brain. Now, the question is: which factors influence D?

    f) In case that the physical world should be deterministic (which would be remarkable …), this doesn’t really matter, since I don’t know the deterministic program. I cannot compute in advance my next wish. From my point of view, my will always appears free.

    If I didn’t understand your point, please correct me :)

  2. The User Says:

    You will get a longer answer later, but about cancer: That is an example, where local optimisation is possible without influencing the global solution, thus the solution was not optimal, not even a local optimum.

  3. The User Says:

    About free will: That is nonsense because there are no choices, there are no causes, there are just events (at most). I think we have talked about it.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: Use <blockquote cite="name"> for quotations, <pre lang="text    ∨ cpp-qt ∨ cpp ∨ bash ∨ other language"> for code, [latex] for formulas and <em> for em. Contact me if the comment does not get published, it may have accidentally been marked as spam.

Anti-Spam Quiz: