The Flaw of Monotheism

[Scorch]

Let me ask a question of those that follow the main monotheistic religions here (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

God is omnipotent, omni-benevolent and omniscient? Yes? Good.

Now whilst it is basically a fact that modern humans have been around for the past 200,000 years (that is, in our relatively current form, as opposed to earlier hominid evolution which we can trace back for millions of years before), let us operate with a minutely small assumption that they have been around for only 70,000 years.

Monotheistic religion emerged about 4,000 years ago, yes?

So for 66,000 years, God watches. He watches while humans die, mostly of simple bodily infection, with ridiculously high infant mortality rates. They probably live for perhaps 20-30 years, on average, in comparatively squalid conditions, and die in horribly painful ways. For 66,000 years God watches and does nothing. He watches as humanity suffers and toils, as thousands of generations struggle and die in such conditions, as thousands of children die before they reach the age of 3 and does absolutely nothing.

This is to say nothing of the wars and evils they will inflict upon eachother, as opposed to those they suffer by virtue of their very existence.

After 66,000 years (perhaps 62,000 to anticipate the argument that the events described in the earliest parts of the Bible constitute an intervention) of such suffering, God decides "that's enough of this, I'll fix all this up" and finally decides to intervene in the world by picking one group of people and furthering their cause to the detriment of those who once inhabited the land that he helped them violently invade (what a coincidence, those people just happened to write that book, but let's put that aside for a second).

Several thousand years later, he decides that his previous solution really won't do, and says "I'll fix this up again", essentially by offering human sacrifice in the most brutal and torturous of ways.

How fortunate that the evidence to suggest that such a ghastly dogma is true is precisely nil.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Creatio ex mobile

God created the universe in motion at the exact moment you started reading this post. A universe out of nothing complete with a "historic memory" that gives the impression of past events even though the past never actually existed.

What you describe would certainly be problematic, fortunately it's mere appearance; it never occurred. Infact, it was not even you who typed the post above nor me that arranged this reply.

[spanish_emperor]

No what is funny is that God cannot recreate us as we used to be before original sin when he wants to and where he wants to even though he is omnipotent. We first have to go through life. the only reasons i can come up are 1. he wants to see us suffer first 2. he really isn't omnipotent or 3. he doesn't exist.

If he wants to see us suffer then there is no point in worshipping him.
If he is not omnipotent then there is no point in worshipping him
If he is not real then there is no point in worshipping him.

I am really getting bored of these pro religious people. A Sticky should be made of the arguments for God where the first post is constantly updated to provide the advantages and disadvantages of worshipping an invisible man so people don't repeat the same bloody arguments we had a month, two months or 6 months ago.

[Tankbuster]

Now now, Scorch, it's a bit unfair for you to paraphrase someone else almost perfectly and not give credit to its inventor
The above argument (well, not exactly an argument: more like outlining precisely what you'd have to believe in order to believe in monotheism) is a classic Christopher Hitchens tactic which he uses against every religion that claims to believe in a compassionate God, and instead he turns their claims around to bolster the idea that a compassionate God simply cannot reasonably be suggested to exist.

And it's a real gem; probably one of the best eye-openers available.

[boofhead]

Sounds like someone here suffers from an enormous case of anthropomorphism.

In which the goodness or badness of something can only be judged by the created rather than left for the Creator.

"Death is bad, it hurts my feelings''.

Does it now? That's an awful shame.

That's going to change something. Not.

[cenkiss]

Gods did not care about the people that lived away from their prophets

[Strelok]

In which the goodness or badness of something can only be judged by the created rather than left for the Creator.

"Death is bad, it hurts my feelings''.

Does it now? That's an awful shame.

That's going to change something. Not.

Instead of looking at the morality of the subject, which is relative and subjective, I think we should look at the suffering that occured and occurs, without applying 'morality' to it.

[boofhead]

Instead of looking at the morality of the subject, which is relative and subjective, I think we should look at the suffering that occured and occurs, without applying 'morality' to it.

Of course such a process would be equally objective as a man ing about death, yeah? Haha.

''God made us die''......

Sob, weep and a bit of a spasm.

[Arch-hereticK]

Of course such a process would equally objective as a man ing about death, yeah? Haha.

Isn't that what the abrahamic religions are all about, the deathless immortal soul?

[boofhead]

Isn't that what the abrahamic religions are all about, the deathless immortal soul?

Mostly. Although many Christians believe souls are destructible.

I really don't like this ''Abrahamic religions'' fad.

It's really only a bunch of modern muslims telling people ''Look! You're muslim too!''

Well, no I'm not. This is Sparta, and you are Athenian boy-lovers.

I don't care what you think about Abraham, Moses, or Jesus. Or Joshua, or Ishmael.

Think what you want.

[motiv-8]

Instead of looking at the morality of the subject, which is relative and subjective,

Ah, so one starts the argument by presupposing, for benefit of your argument, the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, under which system morality would NOT be relative or subjective but ABSOLUTELY objective (since such things would only exist under the auspices of that God), but on the other hand to defend that argument against a counter-statement you would like to point out that morality is now relative and subjective again, destroying part of the crux of the argument itself, paradoxically, for the benefit your argument.

The OP doesn't even highlight a problem of monotheism, only of the ancient Abrahamic tradition, because monotheism doesn't have to suppose a God which directly intervenes in material affairs.

[Nietzsche]

The OP doesn't even highlight a problem of monotheism, only of the ancient Abrahamic tradition, because monotheism doesn't have to suppose a God which directly intervenes in material affairs.

I don't even think it does that. The way the books are written suggest "intervention" only when read with a very narrow lens. However, when the statements made in those books are considered as a narrative, the intervention only appears so to the believers themselves as an explanation of their successes and failures.

For example: Babylonian captivity? Must be the will of God. Victorious in the Battle of Badr? Must be the will of God. Success and failure are told in the context of moral lessons because moral instruction is of central importance to the cultural traditions of Abrahamic religions not because of any "real" or physical manifestation or expression of God's will.

The OP constructs a fallacy that attributes all human action and human frailty proceeding from the will of God. It's the same sort of nonsense spewed by Pat Robertson when he said that the earthquake in Haiti is a result of their "pact with the devil." It's neither eye-opening, nor particularly instructive. Voltaire made a better argument after the Lisbon earthquake. Although, his argument was much the same.

[iudas]

I don't even think it does that. The way the books are written suggest "intervention" only when read with a very narrow lens. However, when the statements made in those books are considered as a narrative, the intervention only appears so to the believers themselves as an explanation of their successes and failures.

For example: Babylonian captivity? Must be the will of God. Victorious in the Battle of Badr? Must be the will of God. Success and failure are told in the context of moral lessons because moral instruction is of central importance to the cultural traditions of Abrahamic religions not because of any "real" or physical manifestation or expression of God's will.

The OP constructs a fallacy that attributes all human action and human frailty proceeding from the will of God. It's the same sort of nonsense spewed by Pat Robertson when he said that the earthquake in Haiti is a result of their "pact with the devil." It's neither eye-opening, nor particularly instructive. Voltaire made a better argument after the Lisbon earthquake. Although, his argument was much the same.

Ah, so you are relying on the Free Will paradox of Abrahamic religions, am I wrong? God already knows what will happen, nevertheless everyone has a free will of their own...

[Nietzsche]

Ah, so you are relying on the Free Will paradox of Abrahamic religions, am I wrong? God already knows what will happen, nevertheless everyone has a free will of their own...

Does knowledge of the future imply an intent for it to happen in a preconceived way? I don't see a paradox. I see an attempt to irrationalize a belief system with semantic sophistry.

My point was simply that if humanity's progress from hunter-gatherer societies to the Greek model could be caused by the start of divine intervention as Siggy seemed to imply (though I may have missed his point, since he didn't expand very much), then there's no reason why this shouldn't have happened 200,000 years ago.

Setting aside some assumptions you have on the subject, I think it fair to assume that the invention of language and writing was necessary before any intervention could be recorded in an understandable way. I suppose you could then turn the argument into a "well gee, why didn't God give us those tools in the first place." Really, that's just silly. If there is a divine presence, it is equally possible said presence waited for humanity to do some necessary groundwork before relaying further information. We do have free will after all...

[Tankbuster]

Setting aside some assumptions you have on the subject, I think it fair to assume that the invention of language and writing was necessary before any intervention could be recorded in an understandable way. I suppose you could then turn the argument into a "well gee, why didn't God give us those tools in the first place." Really, that's just silly. If there is a divine presence, it is equally possible said presence waited for humanity to do some necessary groundwork before relaying further information. We do have free will after all...

Sure, you can make that assumption. In which case the time "when humanity speeds up, grows up, grasps the tools of organized life and rational living", as Siggy said, happened without divine revelation and only through human strife and effort.
In which case I first wonder why we have much need for his guidance and divine word at all, and second why on Earth an omnipotent God is so dependant on human mechanics to convey his messages (a corollary of his mysterious habit of never directly intervening but always using humans for that purpose, it seems... )

Ultimately it all comes down to the question of whether at one time, God created man, or at many times and in many places, many men created many Gods. The latter doesn't leave much to be explained, yet the former is plagued by many questions, some of which have come up in this thread: "Why did he only take the time to introduce himself to humanity after several civilisations had already died out and humanity was already well on the way of knowledge and literacy?" "Why did he use only one prophet in a quite illiterate tribe instead of choosing a method that would yield better returns?" "Why didn't he come forward any sooner and why did he consistently soften up his message?"

All these questions can be answered if you try hard enough, though some require rather awkward loopholes, smoke-screens and a lot of assumptions.
It simply makes me wonder why one goes through all the trouble...

[iudas]

Does knowledge of the future imply an intent for it to happen in a preconceived way? I don't see a paradox. I see an attempt to irrationalize a belief system with semantic sophistry.

You're right, there is no paradox. You can throw the omnipotence card and everything becomes plausible.

[Strelok]

Ah, so one starts the argument by presupposing, for benefit of your argument, the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, under which system morality would NOT be relative or subjective but ABSOLUTELY objective (since such things would only exist under the auspices of that God)

I said morality is relative and subjective, which inherently would mean for us, us Humans. If God exists and he has a specific moral code, then that is that, but we do not know it.

I didn't also didn't even make the presumption that God would be omniscient or omnipotent. Where did I say this in this topic? Nowhere. The OP said this.

Abut on the other hand to defend that argument against a counter-statement you would like to point out that morality is now relative and subjective again

Again, I didn't make these presumptions.

destroying part of the crux of the argument itself, paradoxically, for the benefit your argument.

If God exists, our morality is still relative and subjective, because obviously we do not know for certain what his/her/it's ethics are. If such a being actually layed down a list, we can only make our subjective interpetations and put them into action, and since people will have different opinions, and pass those opinions onto their offspring and within different cultures, it is also relative.

It's easy to destroy an argument that I didn't even make, isn't it?

Of course such a process would be equally objective as a man ing about death, yeah? Haha.

Can you re-write this statement? Not only do I not understand what you're trying to say, I don't see how your post is relevant at all to what I siad.

'God made us die''......

Sob, weep and a bit of a spasm.

Where did I say "God made us die" and where did I mention weeping?

[kesa82]

Monotheistic religion emerged about 4,000 years ago, yes?

Writing emerged about 4,000 years ago. before that we simply don't know. Debate rages , and will most likely continue to rage, over whether Neanderthal was spiritual or not for example.

Likewise the speculations concerning whether the religion of the ancient Egyptians was pantheistic, polytheistic , or even monotheistic , are interesting and engaging but so far unresolved. The basic problem is it usually doesn't occur to people to describe or explain for the benefit of posterity what is at the time ubiquitous, that which everyone knows, that which goes without saying. Or, if someone did explain, unfortunately even acid-free papyrus is a quite perishable product. what exactly did a given Egyptian priest believe, or what did the whole group claim to believe, is a more problematical question than you might think.

[Fiyenyaa]

Writing emerged about 4,000 years ago.

6,600 BC
6,000 - 4,000 BC
~3,000 BC
All more than 4,000 years ago, and this is just from a cursory search.

Mostly. Although many Christians believe souls are destructible.

I really don't like this ''Abrahamic religions'' fad.

It's really only a bunch of modern muslims telling people ''Look! You're muslim too!''

Well, no I'm not. This is Sparta, and you are Athenian boy-lovers.

I don't care what you think about Abraham, Moses, or Jesus. Or Joshua, or Ishmael.

Think what you want.

They do all stem from the same source (or at least purport to), though.

[kesa82]

6,600 BC
6,000 - 4,000 BC
~3,000 BC
All more than 4,000 years ago, and this is just from a cursory search.

Interesting that you quoted my flaw in the math, not his.