There are so many inconsistencies with this stuff, but what bothers me most is something else. The whole thing is just needlessly cruel to all living beings, many of which did nothing wrong. An omnipotent god could have done something way less cruel and way more efficient if it wanted to.
Anyone interested in this, I suggest listening to the “Data over dogma” podcast.
The Bible is a book with multiple authors that had completely different conceptions of God and that borrowed local traditions for their own.
For example, the belief in one god is believed by scholars to be a later change to the Bible. In that region, it would be more common for the belief to be that there’s a God of a land or nation with their power bound to that land. The world was viewed as one with a battle of the gods rather than being one with a supreme ruler.
This is why the Bible so often disagrees with itself. Because each author had their own motives and were sometimes responding to each other in their writings.
Well, omnipotency is out, I believe. An omnipotent god needs, by definition, be equally able and likely to be exceedingly cruel as wellwilling. The question is, why would such a god hav given Noah the task of building an arc in the first place?
And the question of humanities “free will” is another nail in the coffin. Either humans only have free will for as much as whatever whim the omnipotent god allows for, or of the free will is immutable, then there is one thing the “omnipotent” god can’t do, and thus omnipotence is out…
As i said, by definition. If there is anything holding such a deity from doing one thing, or the other, it is unable to do all things, thus not omnipotent.
I think it would help if I knew what definition you were using, I’m not sure where the equally likely part comes from. I think there would be a distinction between an omnipotent being being able to do a thing and choosing to do a thing.
I am being pedantic here, but “cruelty” doesn’t seem like quite the right word. If you made something, like a drawing or a story, and then got rid of it, the point isn’t to cause suffering, but rather to throw it away. “Indifference” would fit better. And… either way, a Creator sorta by definition has the legal right to do so, with their own work? “Omnipotent” there being a relative word, that the ancient people’s would not have been able to distinguish b/t forms like your more common garden-variety space alien (e.g. 2001 Odyssey) all the way up to external-reality entity (e.g. The Matrix).
Anyway my point is that it is people who are the ones that are cruel, b/c we are no better than anyone else, yet we delight in causing suffering. The only other animal I have ever heard of who shares that trait is the Chimpanzee, who btw also just so happens to be the closest living relative that humans have on this planet. \s on that being a coincidence ofc, when we share ~99% genetic similarity.
a Creator sorta by definition has the legal right to do so, with their own work?
What is different between this and a mother or father killing their own child because they ‘created’ it? I would say that if you create a thing with feelings, thoughts, flesh, and blood, you have the responsibility to take care of that thing, and if you don’t that is cruel.
DO parents create their children, really, or do they just FAAFO? But if you write a computer program, don’t you have rights to it? The latter is a thorny question indeed, if it develops sentience. So it seems like both yes, at a lower level, but then no once it rises to a similar level as you. Similar to how an embryo or even more so an unfertilized egg is not a “person” yet (except in the Southern USA), but an adult is. Or some people may argue that Might Makes Right, which most of us would disagree with, but e.g. the likes of Putin would still push forth. So there is indeed no consensus there, and likely never will be. But my main point here, besides simply listing some of these factors involved, is to say that the act of Creation seems to involve more than just fucking, even knowing full well that a child would result from that act - full Creation involves a much deeper commitment, hence a higher degree of ownership.
There are so many inconsistencies with this stuff, but what bothers me most is something else. The whole thing is just needlessly cruel to all living beings, many of which did nothing wrong. An omnipotent god could have done something way less cruel and way more efficient if it wanted to.
The Old Testament doesn’t do a lot to give the idea that god is “benevolent” or “kind”
Cruelty was kinda the schtick
Anyone interested in this, I suggest listening to the “Data over dogma” podcast.
The Bible is a book with multiple authors that had completely different conceptions of God and that borrowed local traditions for their own.
For example, the belief in one god is believed by scholars to be a later change to the Bible. In that region, it would be more common for the belief to be that there’s a God of a land or nation with their power bound to that land. The world was viewed as one with a battle of the gods rather than being one with a supreme ruler.
This is why the Bible so often disagrees with itself. Because each author had their own motives and were sometimes responding to each other in their writings.
Another take: God is an asshole and modeled men after himself. Explains a lot if you think about human history, doesn’t it?
And of course there is no god, only delusions to keep the population under check. Humans are simply assholes by nature.
Well, omnipotency is out, I believe. An omnipotent god needs, by definition, be equally able and likely to be exceedingly cruel as wellwilling. The question is, why would such a god hav given Noah the task of building an arc in the first place?
And the question of humanities “free will” is another nail in the coffin. Either humans only have free will for as much as whatever whim the omnipotent god allows for, or of the free will is immutable, then there is one thing the “omnipotent” god can’t do, and thus omnipotence is out…
How do you figure that?
As i said, by definition. If there is anything holding such a deity from doing one thing, or the other, it is unable to do all things, thus not omnipotent.
I think it would help if I knew what definition you were using, I’m not sure where the equally likely part comes from. I think there would be a distinction between an omnipotent being being able to do a thing and choosing to do a thing.
And it didn’t even accomplish anything.
I am being pedantic here, but “cruelty” doesn’t seem like quite the right word. If you made something, like a drawing or a story, and then got rid of it, the point isn’t to cause suffering, but rather to throw it away. “Indifference” would fit better. And… either way, a Creator sorta by definition has the legal right to do so, with their own work? “Omnipotent” there being a relative word, that the ancient people’s would not have been able to distinguish b/t forms like your more common garden-variety space alien (e.g. 2001 Odyssey) all the way up to external-reality entity (e.g. The Matrix).
Anyway my point is that it is people who are the ones that are cruel, b/c we are no better than anyone else, yet we delight in causing suffering. The only other animal I have ever heard of who shares that trait is the Chimpanzee, who btw also just so happens to be the closest living relative that humans have on this planet. \s on that being a coincidence ofc, when we share ~99% genetic similarity.
What is different between this and a mother or father killing their own child because they ‘created’ it? I would say that if you create a thing with feelings, thoughts, flesh, and blood, you have the responsibility to take care of that thing, and if you don’t that is cruel.
DO parents create their children, really, or do they just FAAFO? But if you write a computer program, don’t you have rights to it? The latter is a thorny question indeed, if it develops sentience. So it seems like both yes, at a lower level, but then no once it rises to a similar level as you. Similar to how an embryo or even more so an unfertilized egg is not a “person” yet (except in the Southern USA), but an adult is. Or some people may argue that Might Makes Right, which most of us would disagree with, but e.g. the likes of Putin would still push forth. So there is indeed no consensus there, and likely never will be. But my main point here, besides simply listing some of these factors involved, is to say that the act of Creation seems to involve more than just fucking, even knowing full well that a child would result from that act - full Creation involves a much deeper commitment, hence a higher degree of ownership.