Why does God create sub standard souls?

[Greatest I am]

Why does God create sub standard souls?

In the beginning, God judged his creations good. Gen 1; 31

Scripture says that God is perfect and that his works are as well. Matt 5; 48, Deu 32; 4
Many do not think that things are particularly good or perfect yet scripture says they must be. Matt 7; 18

You will likely agree with those who say that there is more evil than good in the world. I tend to disagree but few see things as I do.
Many think that things are bad but that they are going exactly the way God wants and if you are in this camp, I thank you for your opinion and discard it as quite illogical.

In fact, if you look at the system God created from afar, you would have to say, if theist opinion is true, that God has screwed up fairly badly because more of the souls he is reported to love, go to hell rather than heaven. You might also wonder why God could not control heaven when only the angels were there and why he also lost control of the earth and had to use genocide on man in Noah’s day. God, after all, is supposed to be master of all, yet things do not go his way.

This observation of our system being corrupted, that you likely see, contradicts scripture and God’s judgment of good, which is upgraded to perfect. Deu 32; 4

The logic trail of the scriptures quoted says that the initial perfection or good that God created will maintain itself in that condition and pass it up over time. It cannot backslide.

It happens that some have asked themselves this before. A group of Jews whose culture was instrumental in shaping Christian belief. Scripture is based on their theories of God. I do not know if you would give them regard for a higher insight because of that but I give you this link to help jog the mind. I would not call it entertaining so much as enlightening. In fact, if you are not disturbed by it you will not likely be able to contribute a sound answer to this post. Unfortunately, I do not have the complete series but I do have the pertinent part. They found that God was guilty of abandoning them.
It appears that God has also abandoned the rest of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

For those who think that God should not be judged, I offer this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Adults can and should judge God’s performance.

As bad as things were for the Jews in the holocaust, I would remind you that about 16,000 of us starve to death daily while God, as in WWII, does nothing. This about equals in one year the number of Jews that were exterminated. We have been losing that many for some years now.

----------------------------------------------

Who is correct?

God, who judged all things good or perfect.

Or.

Most theists, who think that things are not good or perfect and that they will not get better till end time.

As a bonus question, why can God not produce one obviously good man without pestering a virgin and why does he keep producing sub standard souls or does he make them as perfect as scripture says?

Regards
DL

[Roo St. Gallus]

He does that just to chap your hide, GIA.

[Monad]

It can't stand the competition

[Jobar]

In the past I've used the Argument from Imperfection myself, against various fundamentalists at Internet Infidels. From this 2006 thread (http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=3222516&postcount=68)-

I've long been fascinated by the doublethink required to believe that a perfect being created imperfection.

Yeah, yeah, we'll start hearing about 'free will' for the umpty-umpth time. However, the Rev will simultaneously be talking about how we're God's pottery. Seems to me that even a competent potter accepts that any defects in the pots he throws are his own fault; either in his execution, or in his choice of materials. But God is supposedly perfect. And supposedly made His own materials.

Yet Tim will refuse to allow that God made any errors. Or say that humans are in any way perfect.

Doublethink at its finest.

Ziffel commented in the very next post:

Haha, Jobar, I guess it goes something like this:

Potter: "pot, thou art flawed! and thou art at fault!"

pot: " ... "

Potter: "HULK SMASH!"


:D

[Free in Freeport]

Adam was a rough draft.

[Rie]

GIA... my little book says "God is far more inrested in your character than your comfort"... And my little book cites the sad story of such as John the Baptist, that blameless man, who lost his head over a woman!!!!!!

[Jack Willsson]

Powerful post gia. I'm not sure what I've learned but I've sure learned something. I'll give it time ro sink in.

"God is not good" is a very powerful argument for Atheism. If there is real good in the world and "God" is evil then the only conclusion I can draw is "There is no "God"".

The Bible histories are probably better as histories than we give them credit for - once de-mythed - but who needs disputed Bible stories when we've got real floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, famines, droughts, plagues etc to tell us that the forces that govern our physical world are totally incapable of compassion.....

[Greatest I am]

Powerful post gia. I'm not sure what I've learned but I've sure learned something. I'll give it time ro sink in.

"God is not good" is a very powerful argument for Atheism. If there is real good in the world and "God" is evil then the only conclusion I can draw is "There is no "God"".

The Bible histories are probably better as histories than we give them credit for - once de-mythed - but who needs disputed Bible stories when we've got real floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, famines, droughts, plagues etc to tell us that the forces that govern our physical world are totally incapable of compassion.....

Thanks. Let me hurt your brain even more.

Is evolution good? If so then so is evil.

As animals, we are part of evolution.
In evolution animals have only two choices and that is the same with man.
We can either compete or cooperate with whatever conditions present themselves.
If you can see good as cooperation and evil as competing, then you will realize that both in our psyche are necessary for survival and good health.

Whence comes evil?

It is hard wired into us by nature. Thank God, so to speak, for that.
Our task, as part of a demographic common, is to just control our passions.

Regards
DL

[Clivedurdle]

The gnostics were right - this universe was create by a junior trainee god.

[Rie]

My little book says "Your time on earth is not the complete story of your life...you must wait until heaven for the rest of the chapters.
But I dunno about the sub-standard ones GIA??? My book says the bible says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god" ... guess that's it for me and the sub-standard set?

[Greatest I am]

The gnostics were right - this universe was create by a junior trainee god.

You will know that the Gnostics did not read their own scriptures literally.
The concept of a flawed earth was a Christian concept. You will note how God cursed the ground as he was evicting A & E.
The Gnostics fought this notion as it conflicted with the notion of a God within. God would not be within a corrupt system now would he?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

My little book says "Your time on earth is not the complete story of your life...you must wait until heaven for the rest of the chapters.
But I dunno about the sub-standard ones GIA??? My book says the bible says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god" ... guess that's it for me and the sub-standard set?

If you have read the Bible then you know that God is quite the sinner. man deserves more glory than that genocidal maniac.

Think again.
Do you venerate Hitler or Stalin?

Regards
DL

[Rie]

YESSIR GIA.:woohoo::woohoo:

[Ozymandias]

"God is not good" is a very powerful argument for Atheism.


It is a completely rubbish argument. Any definition of "good" you can come up with is subjective and arbitrary. So defining things to be good if God says they are is as valid a definition (in a logic sense) as any other. Then, God is obviously good by definition.

A much better argument (in fact the only argument) for atheism is that there is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists.

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

The entire concept is fallicious and illogical.

Probably because it's simply ardious and not in the least bit realistic. Or true.

Moral relativity is impossible to discuss, there is no concrete or fundamental data or sub-groups to even provide an argument.

[Greatest I am]

The entire concept is fallicious and illogical.

Probably because it's simply ardious and not in the least bit realistic. Or true.

Moral relativity is impossible to discuss, there is no concrete or fundamental data or sub-groups to even provide an argument.

It is said that intelligent men can discuss what they do not believe in, even abstracts.

I do no that some are not intelligent though.

Case in point perhaps.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"God is not good" is a very powerful argument for Atheism.


It is a completely rubbish argument. Any definition of "good" you can come up with is subjective and arbitrary. .

Does not good become a definitive answer if there are no arguments against it.
I have yet to hear anyone say that genocide is good.

Regards
DL

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

The entire concept is fallicious and illogical.

Probably because it's simply ardious and not in the least bit realistic. Or true.

Moral relativity is impossible to discuss, there is no concrete or fundamental data or sub-groups to even provide an argument.

It is said that intelligent men can discuss what they do not believe in, even abstracts.

I do no that some are not intelligent though.

Case in point perhaps.

Regards
DL

So, you think this discussion, or anything it entails, is going somewhere?

[Greatest I am]

The entire concept is fallicious and illogical.

Probably because it's simply ardious and not in the least bit realistic. Or true.

Moral relativity is impossible to discuss, there is no concrete or fundamental data or sub-groups to even provide an argument.

It is said that intelligent men can discuss what they do not believe in, even abstracts.

I do no that some are not intelligent though.

Case in point perhaps.

Regards
DL

So, you think this discussion, or anything it entails, is going somewhere?

I was not speaking about this discussion. I was speaking of any discussion.

Regards
DL

[Jack Willsson]

"God is not good" is a very powerful argument for Atheism.


It is a completely rubbish argument. Any definition of "good" you can come up with is subjective and arbitrary. .

Does not good become a definitive answer if there are no arguments against it.
I have yet to hear anyone say that genocide is good.

Regards
DL

Thanks Gia.

Genocide is happening perpetually - more in nature than war even. If "God" can't stop it then he's not much of a god. If he "could but doesn't want to" then he's more evil than good - making a world of feeling helpless creatures in order to torture them is about as evil as anything can get.

UFBG is right, there's no evidence that there is any god at all but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, as a "good" god is not an option, the choice is either "no god" or "evil god".

If there are kind, compassionate, benevolent people in this world, they sure haven't been put here by an evil god. So my conclusion is "no god".

[Ozymandias]

UFBG is right, there's no evidence that there is any god at all but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I agree, but to be an atheist, you don't need to claim absence - you just need to not claim presence.

[Greatest I am]

UFBG is right, there's no evidence that there is any god at all but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I agree, but to be an atheist, you don't need to claim absence - you just need to not claim presence.

You are right. That is a better use of language. I think that that is why the so called anti God ads say there probably is no God.
they do not want to be accused by the theists of making un-provable definitive statements even as they do by stating that there is a God without ever putting him up. Those who do not believe because of lack of proof should say it that way and be seen as more accurate and sensible than theist.

Regards
DL

[Ozymandias]

To say "there probably is no god" is also silly, because it is not something you can assign a probability to. If the theists were smarter they would ask the ad-makers to quantify their probability. The "correct" stance is to make no statement about God and then ignore him (or make a personal statement like "I don't believe in the existence of a god").

[Jack Willsson]

To say "there probably is no god" is also silly, because it is not something you can assign a probability to. If the theists were smarter they would ask the ad-makers to quantify their probability. The "correct" stance is to make no statement about God and then ignore him (or make a personal statement like "I don't believe in the existence of a god").

Isn't that the "weak atheist" (no-god belief) position as opposed to the strong atheist "I believe there is no god" (no god - belief).

******

Most theists will argue black is white for fear of upsetting what must appear as a spoilt-brat "God" and getting rejected along with us. How many times have I heard stuff like "mysterious ways" and "who are we to judge?". To say that "God" is obeying "Love God above all" is just a convenient cop-out.


If we are required to "Love our neighbour as ourselves" to be good are we not supposed to notice that it's a matter of "do as I say and not as I do". The ancients who believed in capricious "gods" made more sense.

I stick by my "there is no god" conclusion as volunteer lifeboatmen scramble yet again to rescue sailors in danger.

[Clivedurdle]

The chaotic nature of the sea, sometimes calm, sometimes horrific, is as I understand it a classic example of the fractal, non linear nature of the universe. The pleasure of sailing when it is not terrifying me is about playing with these flows and strange attractors.

[Greatest I am]

To say "there probably is no god" is also silly, because it is not something you can assign a probability to. If the theists were smarter they would ask the ad-makers to quantify their probability. The "correct" stance is to make no statement about God and then ignore him (or make a personal statement like "I don't believe in the existence of a god").

An individual can say such for sure. The reader would then say, big deal. just another opinion without facts.
The other way may generate thought and that is the goal of advertising. That or create a need or want.

You might remember that in an endless universe, all possibilities are probabilities.

Regards
DL

[Jack Willsson]

To say "there probably is no god" is also silly, because it is not something you can assign a probability to. If the theists were smarter they would ask the ad-makers to quantify their probability. The "correct" stance is to make no statement about God and then ignore him (or make a personal statement like "I don't believe in the existence of a god").

An individual can say such for sure. The reader would then say, big deal. just another opinion without facts.
The other way may generate thought and that is the goal of advertising. That or create a need or want.

You might remember that in an endless universe, all possibilities are probabilities.

Regards
DL

"endless" is a moot point there. Do you think the Cosmos (where the universe or all the universes are) is endless?

Endless in Latin is Infinitum. Do you think anything is infinite in extent or duration?

[Greatest I am]

To say "there probably is no god" is also silly, because it is not something you can assign a probability to. If the theists were smarter they would ask the ad-makers to quantify their probability. The "correct" stance is to make no statement about God and then ignore him (or make a personal statement like "I don't believe in the existence of a god").

An individual can say such for sure. The reader would then say, big deal. just another opinion without facts.
The other way may generate thought and that is the goal of advertising. That or create a need or want.

You might remember that in an endless universe, all possibilities are probabilities.

Regards
DL

"endless" is a moot point there. Do you think the Cosmos (where the universe or all the universes are) is endless?

Endless in Latin is Infinitum. Do you think anything is infinite in extent or duration?

Yep. Space.
I hope so or the universe will hit a wall and we have to start digging to see what is on the other side.

Regards
DL

[Jack Willsson]

UFBG is right, there's no evidence that there is any god at all but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I agree, but to be an atheist, you don't need to claim absence - you just need to not claim presence.

I'm not concerned about what minimum I need to claim in order to be an atheist. I do believe that there is no "God". If that makes me an atheist then that's what I am.

[Rie]

:)I am happy with my notion of it all being endless in a going in circles. Time, matter... a constant beginning and end. Don't know what that makes me but certainly unless this process jump started itself, then a goose bumpy something did.

[Jack Willsson]

:)I am happy with my notion of it all being endless in a going in circles. Time, matter... a constant beginning and end. Don't know what that makes me but certainly unless this process jump started itself, then a goose bumpy something did.



Nasty goose bumps you've got there Rie but if it's "endless" and going in circles it didn't start - it just was.

Either it just was or the goosy bumpy thing just was. 'Just being' seems to be necessary however difficult to understand.