Given the postulate that an intelligence created the universe . . .

How would you argue for or against the belief that the creating intelligence was the Judeo-Christian God?

(Please don't argue that an intelligence didn't create the universe, because even though I agree, I don't want to take this in circles again.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Because if J-C made the universe, everything (all the beliefs of man, a lot of the things that happened) would make sense. Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't explain anything.

Still Sheepin'

Exclusively speaking, I do agree with the postulate, but I wouldn't try and prove the identity of the being in question either way.

I guess... well, if we're operating on the assumption that in this scenario, we know there is this all-powerful intelligent being that created the universe, but we don't know what it is, specifically? I would say the existence of the Bible, both New and Old Testament, and the Qur'an, are pretty good evidence. None of the other major faiths of the world I can think of match the "single, all-powerful intelligent being" requirement...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think an apathetic god would make as much sense if not more.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

No it wouldn't, as USAF said, J-C explains all of man's major religions (not counting eastern religions, which use a different definition of 'religion'). Apathetic doesn't.

Occam's razor.

Still Sheepin'

]Not really. The idea that the scriptures were written by humans without divine interfernce isn't really far-fetched.

edited 24th Aug '11 4:02:31 PM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

Well, how about this: is the being actually one of the deities of man, or could it be just something else entirely? If it's the latter, it's actually doubtful it would be any of the human faiths, due simply to probability...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Is there a reason to believe it's a human deity?

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

A god that is NOT all loving, all powerful, and all knowing is a necessity to explain the universe.

What, no it isn't!

Edit: The fact that if it had created the universe and thus mankind, it would want to keep a link between itself and its creations (which it can't directly control), so it set up a method to keep humanity in line.

edited 24th Aug '11 4:11:00 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

Mist Faeries.

Only the all-loving bit would be counter to the universe as we know it. A god could be all-knowing and all-powerful and just be cruel or uncaring, or perhaps be simply so incomprehensible that we cannot fathom the reasoning behind it, which is more likely...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Even that isn't true. Mormons say God loves us, and trials are our key to heaven. Without trials, life wouldn't count. So there has to be trials for us, or we would end up with nothing. It's a loving gesture.

Still Sheepin'

Words have meaning. It may very well that "god" is unfathomable, but the definition of All Loving is not unfathomable, and if indeed God is unfathomable in a way that demands suffering despite his omnipotence, he does not qualify for our definition of All Loving.

Maybe God is All Loving by Godly definitions of All Loving. But we're using the words in human language, so we use human meanings. If you're going to say "God is all loving but in god terms" then I demand you call it Godoving.

Because the actual deductive and inductive conclusions we can be made from Godoving are the same as from "God is all loving in god terms" (namely: none).

There's no logical necessity that in order for life to count, there must be trials. To suggest God cannot make it otherwise is to suggest God is not omnipotent.

At least Rottweiler once pointed out that it's silly to call God omnipotent, and just to call him The Most Powerful and such.

edited 24th Aug '11 4:15:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I'm somewhat doubtful that someone who dies at the age of 3 either succeeded in or failed any "trial." If we're going to argue a trial at all, it seems easier to argue that it's for humanity as a whole rather than for any specific individual. (Come to think of it, that approach might explain a lot—when greed and corruption run rampant, mankind creates its own hell.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I would argue that needless complexity and inefficiency of both physics and biology implies that the intelligence that created the universe was either a committee, a bureaucracy, or someone who was making the universe while still learning how to do so.

Or perhaps, Draco, it's simply that god thought it would be more interesting to put... holes, in it.

Also, Sheep, I guess. I mean, I agree, life is meaningless without conflict, but the conflict god has chosen to give us in this scenario isn't really screaming "all-loving" to me...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Not everyone is here to go through trials, sometimes people are trials for others.

God needs some children to die, so he can test his people. Those children will go to heaven, unconditionally.

edited 24th Aug '11 4:19:57 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

How do you know what god wants?

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

I don't, I'm offering one possible explanation.

Still Sheepin'

If God is really omniscient . . .

I prefer the argument that there's more than one God out there. Say that Satan created these trials, or Ahura Mazda, or what have you.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Imma call BS on the idea that a loving god would put a baby on Earth just to take it away immediately...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Satan does create these trials (or some of them at least), but God doesn't stop him, even though he could. I wasn't explaining why God is putting us through trials, I was explaining why God allows us to be put through trials. (I realize this wasn't clear, I'm just explaining)

Why? The baby will get an eternal reward.

edited 24th Aug '11 4:25:26 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

Because the existence of an all-powerful being automatically means that there is an afterlife? Who says that such a god defines "reward" in any way we could appreciate or even like? Why bother doing it in the first place, for a baby or even a young child?

I am now known as Flyboy.

This thread has already hit the "obnoxious theories pulled out of nowhere to explain blatant contradictions" limit for me.