You Don't Really Love Me!

[Unsapien]

You say "psychopath" like it's a bad thing.

Well they do stop at every stop sign.

[SYZ]

The Man Upstairs reveals himself.  He proves to everyone that he really exists, that he really created the universe, and he really is omnipotent and omniscient.  So for the purpose of this discussion, we all now believe in an all knowing and all powerful creator of the universe...

This is a truly absurd hypothesis and goes way beyond the childish "let's suppose" posit. It's not even worth my time to fire up the old synapses to think about this.   

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You say "psychopath" like it's a bad thing.

Well they do stop at every stop sign.

LOL A guest lecturer was speaking to my Psych class one day and in the course of his talk he said "And how many of us actually stop at a stop sign when there's nobody around?" I thought it was a question and raised my hand. Confusion resulted.

[Yonadav]

Here is our list so far for a deity who loves us. We're creating a world in which there is a loving deity. What else do you need to believe that the deity really loves you?

No sickness.
No hatred.
A convincing explanation for why Tay Sachs has been caused or allowed.
Make sure humans have enough for their basic needs.
Protect them from excessive harm.
Encourage them to learn.
Provide useful and timely guidance.
Watch over them and intervene when necessary to do any of the above.
Die.
Make us understand why horrors of the past actually equaled love.

[no one]

Your all powerful, all knowng, ever seeing god is unworthy of me. It can kiss my balls!

[Paleophyte]

BUT, we still doubt that he really loves us. Let him prove his love to you, baby!

Me love you long time humanity.

What will he have to do to prove his love to you?

Not exist.

[Yonadav]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

[no one]

For me, there isn't a discussion. If this god is real, it is either painfully intellectually stunted, or it is a sadistic, tyrannical, blood thirsty, monstrous scum bag! No matter how you look at it, I have no respect for it. There isn't a single thing it could do to change that.

[Paleophyte]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

Perhaps you are missing the point. Any deity that is incapable of nonexistence is hardly omnipotent.

[Aliza]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

Okay, adding new word to personal vocabulary. Eristic.

[Chas]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

The reason for the eristic comments is because it was never going to be an interesting discussion.
The premise is absurd to an atheist as all of the evidence of all of history demonstrates that it is not possible that there is a loving god.

And "what if" scenarios are boringly masturbatory.

[Alan V]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

That's debatable.  

[Yonadav]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

The reason for the eristic comments is because it was never going to be an interesting discussion.
The premise is absurd to an atheist as all of the evidence of all of history demonstrates that it is not possible that there is a loving god.

And "what if" scenarios are boringly masturbatory.

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity. I see no proof of it one way or the other. In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away. Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

[Gwaithmir]

For me, there isn't a discussion. If this god is real, it is either painfully intellectually stunted, or it is a sadistic, tyrannical, blood thirsty, monstrous scum bag! No matter how you look at it, I have no respect for it. There isn't a single thing it could do to change that.

That's exactly how I felt after reading the Book of Job. I think I was in 6th or 7th grade at the time.

[Chas]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

The reason for the eristic comments is because it was never going to be an interesting discussion.
The premise is absurd to an atheist as all of the evidence of all of history demonstrates that it is not possible that there is a loving god.

And "what if" scenarios are boringly masturbatory.

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity. I see no proof of it one way or the other. In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away. Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

It cannot be satisfactorily explained away.
"Because we can't understand" is not an explanation, it is a cowardly dodge.

[Yonadav]

The reason for the eristic comments is because it was never going to be an interesting discussion.
The premise is absurd to an atheist as all of the evidence of all of history demonstrates that it is not possible that there is a loving god.

And "what if" scenarios are boringly masturbatory.

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity.  I see no proof of it one way or the other.  In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away.  Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

It cannot be satisfactorily explained away.  
"Because we can't understand" is not an explanation, it is a cowardly dodge.

From an intellectually honest point of view, it is not.  Take your response, for example.  You admit that it 'dodges' the problem of evil.  So you admit that it gets around the problem of evil.  You describe it as 'cowardly' for the purpose of posturing.  You would rather 'win' than be right.

On the other hand, I am not saying that you are wrong.  I'm just saying that intellectually honest people should be willing to discuss what they would expect from a loving deity, if they are going to argue that the problem of evil is proof that there is no loving deity.

[Full Circle]

Perhaps the God that turns out to really exist is a Germ God and loves his germs, and we humans were placed on the Earth to simply be hosts? 

From the irreverent Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens

How insignificant we are, with our pigmy little world!-- an atom glinting with uncounted myriads of other atom worlds in a broad shaft of light streaming from God's countenance--and yet prating complacently of our speck as the Great World, and regarding the other specks as pretty trifles made to steer our schooners by and inspire the reveries of "puppy" lovers. Did Christ live 33 years in each of the millions and millions of worlds that hold their majestic courses above our heads? Or was our small globe the favored one of all? Does one apple in a vast orchard think as much of itself as we do? or one leaf in the forest--or one grain of sand upon the sea shore? Do the pismires argue upon vexed questions of pismire theology--and do they climb a molehill and look abroad over the grand universe of an acre of ground and say "Great is God, who created all things for Us?"

- Letter to Olivia Landon (Clemens) 8 January 1870

[Chas]

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity.  I see no proof of it one way or the other.  In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away.  Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

It cannot be satisfactorily explained away.  
"Because we can't understand" is not an explanation, it is a cowardly dodge.

From an intellectually honest point of view, it is not.  Take your response, for example.  You admit that it 'dodges' the problem of evil.  So you admit that it gets around the problem of evil.  You describe it as 'cowardly' for the purpose of posturing.  You would rather 'win' than be right.

On the other hand, I am not saying that you are wrong.  I'm just saying that intellectually honest people should be willing to discuss what they would expect from a loving deity, if they are going to argue that the problem of evil is proof that there is no loving deity.

Terming it a dodge does not in any way indicate that it explains it - it does not.
It is cowardly because it avoids confronting the problem - it just avoids it.

This is not about winning - that is your take. It is about calling a spade a spade.
It is intellectually dishonest to dodge tackling the issue of evil and calamity.

[Alan V]

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity.  I see no proof of it one way or the other.  In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away.  Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

I think the discussion is useful and necessary, if not particularly fun. So I agree with you that far, and offered you my own take for that reason.

However, you say the problem of evil can be "explained away." I think the word you're looking for is "rationalized." Theodicies are terribly improbable if not altogether impossible.

[Yonadav]

I think a discussion about what atheists think that the world would be like if there was a loving deity is intellectually necessary, especially in light of the fact that most anti religious atheists adamantly insist that the history of the world is proof that there is no loving deity.

Edit because I forgot to say something:

I honestly don't know what a world would be like in which there is a loving deity.  I see no proof of it one way or the other.  In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away.  Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

I think the discussion is useful and necessary, if not particularly fun.  So I agree with you that far, and offered you my own take for that reason.

However, you say the problem of evil can be "explained away."  I think the word you're looking for is "rationalized."  Theodicies are terribly improbable if not altogether impossible.

Yes, you did post your take on the OP, and I appreciate that.  Perhaps you can help steer things back on course.

[Alan V]

Yes, you did post your take on the OP, and I appreciate that.  Perhaps you can help steer things back on course.

If anything, I have a talent for starting discussions which flatline pretty quickly. That's why I start so few myself, and why I don't think my input could help much.

[Old Man Marsh]

[Old Man Marsh]

Could have been an interesting discussion, had it not been for the eristic games.

Okay, adding new word to personal vocabulary. Eristic.

Hail Eris. Queen of space, et cetera....

[Alan V]

Perhaps you can help steer things back on course.

I've thought about it, and I'll give it another shot tomorrow.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In my opinion, the problem of evil is not evidence because it can be explained away.  Since it can be explained away, I see little in the way of proof for or against a loving deity.

It's not "evidence". It's a counterargument. Against the omnimax conceptions of god coupled with assertions of his goodness, it points up a fundamental contradiction.

It is not "evidence". There is no evidence for or against god(s). It is, however, solid reasoning.