A Logical Christianity

In 4 and 5, I am assuming the arguments to be correct that have been posed to “prove” the existence of God. I am an atheist, I hoped it was obvious that I wasn’t actually begging the question.

God is omniscient, therefore God??™s knowledge is complete and perfect. Human beings do not posses complete and perfect knowledge. Human beings are part of God. Human beings are not exactly like God. Human beings are, therefore, not omniscient. Human beings are, therefore, imperfect. Human beings can reason. Human beings must, therefore, choose. Human beings are imperfect. Human beings make incorrect choices. Evil is incorrect. Humans sometimes choose evil. Humans choose evil because humans are imperfect.

How can a perfect being create imperfect beings? If God created humans, and humans are imperfect, either God is not perfect, or God intended for humans to be imperfect, hence evil.

Omniscience and perfection are the downfalls here. If I were perfect, and omniscient and I created a learning and self improving software program, I would know everything that software program would do before it was unleashed. If 10 years down the road, that software became a virus and brought down half the world’s computers, was that the software acting on its own, or did I create it to do that?

If I knew that software program was going to do what it did, and I created it anyway, what does that say about me? Under our laws, I would be guilty of a criminal act. Should I not be guilty of a crime if my name were God?

Now, you said you were interested in finding out why atheists and Christians can’t see things the same. Look at the analogy I just made and understand the relevance.

First understand why we would prosecute someone that admitted to creating a software program they had foreknowledge would bring down half the world’s computers. After that, replace “software program” with “human” and imagine “I” as “God” and explain why the person making the software program is evil where God is not.

That is the scenario I envision with an omniscient, omnipotent and perfect creator.

In 4 and 5, I am assuming the arguments to be correct that have been posed to “prove” the existence of God. I am an atheist, I hoped it was obvious that I wasn’t actually begging the question.

God is omniscient, therefore God??™s knowledge is complete and perfect. Human beings do not posses complete and perfect knowledge. Human beings are part of God. Human beings are not exactly like God. Human beings are, therefore, not omniscient. Human beings are, therefore, imperfect. Human beings can reason. Human beings must, therefore, choose. Human beings are imperfect. Human beings make incorrect choices. Evil is incorrect. Humans sometimes choose evil. Humans choose evil because humans are imperfect.

How can a perfect being create imperfect beings? If God created humans, and humans are imperfect, either God is not perfect, or God intended for humans to be imperfect, hence evil.

Omniscience and perfection are the downfalls here. If I were perfect, and omniscient and I created a learning and self improving software program, I would know everything that software program would do before it was unleashed. If 10 years down the road, that software became a virus and brought down half the world’s computers, was that the software acting on its own, or did I create it to do that?

If I knew that software program was going to do what it did, and I created it anyway, what does that say about me? Under our laws, I would be guilty of a criminal act. Should I not be guilty of a crime if my name were God?

Now, you said you were interested in finding out why atheists and Christians can’t see things the same. Look at the analogy I just made and understand the relevance.

First understand why we would prosecute someone that admitted to creating a software program they had foreknowledge would bring down half the world’s computers. After that, replace “software program” with “human” and imagine “I” as “God” and explain why the person making the software program is evil where God is not.

That is the scenario I envision with an omniscient, omnipotent and perfect creator.

Thank you so much for responding. I am very appreciative that you would take the time. And thank for allowing me to borrow from your original post. I think you are kind to permit it.

I understand that statement 4 seems so innocently truthful that it should be received at face value. From that, I take your point that you were not begging the question.

I believe the validity of the premises themselves to be in question. I have hope that we can agree on a simple premise that the created thing is less perfect than the creator. I think it must be so, because humans are not omniscient. And humans appear, at least, to have free will. Even though they extend from the source, they still retain certain properties of the source. Software does not have free will.

How can any perfect thing create something from within itself, that is not a subset of itself? And if a subset and not a clone, then the result must be imperfect by definition. Apparently, God did not clone us into a bunch of little God’s. I submit that were he to do so, there would exist the potential for the creation of infinite Gods. That is another subject for another time. Yet the point is made that the created thing, if not a clone of the creator, is clearly imperfect, when compared to the attribute of perfect knowledge assigned to the creator.

I believe the entire message of Christianity to be based on God’s willingness to take responsibility for His choice to create us. By giving us life, he sacrificed something of Himself. Evil is humanly inherent, this is the price of life. Perfection is unattainable for humans. The Gospel of the Christ is that if we accept that He in fact did sacrifice of Himself to give us life, and He again sacrificed Himself in fleshly form, then we may keep it.

Consider the conviction of the Christ as atonement for a bad software program with such a high degree of intelligence that it actually has free will.

I think your logic is sound and your words are true. To me, this validates the Gospel by way of agreement.

Thank you so much for responding. I am very appreciative that you would take the time. And thank for allowing me to borrow from your original post. I think you are kind to permit it.

I understand that statement 4 seems so innocently truthful that it should be received at face value. From that, I take your point that you were not begging the question.

I believe the validity of the premises themselves to be in question. I have hope that we can agree on a simple premise that the created thing is less perfect than the creator. I think it must be so, because humans are not omniscient. And humans appear, at least, to have free will. Even though they extend from the source, they still retain certain properties of the source. Software does not have free will.

How can any perfect thing create something from within itself, that is not a subset of itself? And if a subset and not a clone, then the result must be imperfect by definition. Apparently, God did not clone us into a bunch of little God’s. I submit that were he to do so, there would exist the potential for the creation of infinite Gods. That is another subject for another time. Yet the point is made that the created thing, if not a clone of the creator, is clearly imperfect, when compared to the attribute of perfect knowledge assigned to the creator.

I believe the entire message of Christianity to be based on God’s willingness to take responsibility for His choice to create us. By giving us life, he sacrificed something of Himself. Evil is humanly inherent, this is the price of life. Perfection is unattainable for humans. The Gospel of the Christ is that if we accept that He in fact did sacrifice of Himself to give us life, and He again sacrificed Himself in fleshly form, then we may keep it.

Consider the conviction of the Christ as atonement for a bad software program with such a high degree of intelligence that it actually has free will.

I think your logic is sound and your words are true. To me, this validates the Gospel by way of agreement.

Software does not have free will.

Software certainly can have free will in the same sense that we do. Software can be created to learn, and change behavior based on what it experiences, and has been. It is actually rather trivial to do so. Because of that, it is entirely possible for the software to eventually act in a way that the programmer never foresaw or expected possible.

This is why I wanted you to closely examine it. You immediately assert that the software doesn't have free will, but I argue that it effectively does.

How can any perfect thing create something from within itself, that is not a subset of itself? And if a subset and not a clone, then the result must be imperfect by definition.

How can any perfect being create something and not know what it will do before it creates it? On top of that, you are assuming that in order to be perfect, one has to be all powerful, etc. What about a perfect circle, or a perfect sphere? Things can be perfect in their function, which is what a perfect being is limited to creating.

Consider the conviction of the Christ as atonement for a bad software program with such a high degree of intelligence that it actually has free will.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that God punishes himself? That would suggest that God did something wrong, which would make him imperfect.

All of this has brought another question to my mind. I asked a question a long time ago, and nobody answered it. What if the bible wasn't a story about God? What if the person discussed in the bible as being God was instead a king? Would that king's actions be considered good and the king revered, or would those actions have been considered tyrannical and evil, and the king be hated? I imagine it would be the latter.

Given that no being other than God would be forgiven for such sins, if God had created beings exactly like himself, we would still consider them evil.

Whether or not software has free will in the same sense that we do is a side issue. The relevant point is whether an omniscient God is evil. To assert that software can have a free will granted by its designer, begs a concession. So, I will make one. I will agree that software can be designed to emulate a free will, if you will concede that software is not the same thing as a human.

I have already conceded that the software designer had perfect knowledge that the software was flawed. I further concede that the designer created it, anyway. Here is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

That is the scenario I envision with an omniscient, omnipotent and perfect creator

Your original argument acknowledges the original premise of perfection. Your hypothetical, on the other hand, substitutes an imperfect software designer in place of a perfect human designer. For me, the similarity stops there and the analogy has lost validity as an initial premise.

But it is not without merit. I submit that a perfect, omniscient being has only two choices:
1. Create another perfect being. That says to me to clone Himself into another of His kind, with the same perfect attribute. Without the attribute of omniscience asserted in the original premise, the created thing would be imperfect.
2. Create something with less than the perfect attribute of omniscience.

In comparison, an imperfect software designer may in fact create a piece of code that learns and adapts. And the software may seem to be perfectly suited for its application. But he will never create an omniscient piece of code. Nor will he create one that is perfectly adaptable to the realm of all possibilities.

In either case, to create anything, whether as a God or as a designer, is to bring imperfection into existence. It is from this imperfection -the Bible calls it iniquity- that evil comes.

You asked if the conviction of the Christ was God punishing Himself. The answer is no. Although it does suggest that God did something wrong, that does not mean he did. If He were to Love enough to create life, and the result was a life form incapable of perfection, then evil came with the package, because it could not have been any other way. So why should God punish Himself? Is He wrong for giving you life the only way He could? What I am saying is that He takes responsibility for the inevitability of the inherent evil in anything created with less than the perfect attribute of omniscience.

By dying on the cross, He says that He is paying the price for our sin, since in order to give us life, He had no choice but to create us the way we are.

As for the second question, let me get back to you in another reply. I'm exhausted.

I will agree that software can be designed to emulate a free will, if you will concede that software is not the same thing as a human.

Why is software not the same thing as a human? I see no reason to think that humans have free will any more than adaptable software does.

Every evidence we have says that human consciousness only exists in the brain. It shows that differences in physiology create differences in the nature of the person. People don't seem to be able to create concepts from nothing either. We merely discover new things based on old experiences. You can't imagine a 4th primary color for instance. This would support a deterministic mind.

Your original argument acknowledges the original premise of perfection. Your hypothetical, on the other hand, substitutes an imperfect software designer in place of a perfect human designer. For me, the similarity stops there and the analogy has lost validity as an initial premise.

I said the software designer was omniscient. Why does the similarity stop? Are you saying that because you consider God to be perfect he is held blameless, where an omniscient software designer is not because it is human?

That doesn't seem like a valid reason to dismiss the argument, especially since we are attempting to deal with whether or not God is worthy of being attributed with perfection based merely on two attributes, that he is omniscient, and he is a creator. These two attributes are all that our hypothetical programmer needs.

But he will never create an omniscient piece of code. Nor will he create one that is perfectly adaptable to the realm of all possibilities.

Are you making the common mistake of assuming that something can't create something with attributes it doesn't have itself? If you are, I must ask some questions.

1. How can humans make airplanes that fly when we can't fly ourselves?
2. How can humans make things that move at thousands of miles an hour when we can't move that fast ourselves?

I could go on forever with those, but those should illustrate the point.

Now, I would only agree that a human can't make an omniscient software program only because I don't think it is possible to be omniscient, but that would preclude an omniscient creator of the universe too.

If He were to Love enough to create life, and the result was a life form incapable of perfection, then evil came with the package, because it could not have been any other way. So why should God punish Himself?

In that case, it would be like saying that if I created that software, knowing that it would be destructive, but that particular software couldn't have been created any other way, I would then be blameless? That totally ignores the fact that I could have chosen not to create it in the first place.

Needless to say, the fact God created evil people, evil in the form of things like earthquakes and tsunamis etc., when he could have not created things that way makes him culpable.

I wanted to keep my prior commitment to reply to your second question.
My Dad used to say, “If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass every time he hopped.”

That was only funny to me the first few times I heard it. I had many important questions to ask him. And just because they were hypothetical was no reason for him not to try and answer. Of course, I forgave him, but I grew up dissatisfied.

What if the bible wasn't a story about God?

Interesting so far!

What if the person discussed in the bible as being God was instead a king?

He is a King. Not a stretch to this point.

Would that king's actions be considered good and the king revered

I would need to know more about the actions. I presume you are referring to the one's where He allegedly took life, visited plagues, etc. In which case, my reply is that the beneficiaries would. The victims would not.

or would those actions have been considered tyrannical and evil, and the king be hated?

I think they would be tyrannical and evil to the victims, and hatred would naturally follow.

I imagine it would be the latter.

I would have to agree from the view of those killed, hurt, maimed, diseased, etc.

Given that no being other than God would be forgiven for such sins, if God had created beings exactly like himself, we would still consider them evil.

I suppose at least some of the people would, yes.

So far so good. We are in agreement. Now what?

Needless to say, the fact God created evil people, evil in the form of things like earthquakes and tsunamis etc., when he could have not created things that way makes him culpable.

It's a good thing that since you and I cannot hold him accountable…Him being God and all…that He held Himself accountable on the cross.

I think we have reached a point of agreement.

Needless to say, the fact God created evil people, evil in the form of things like earthquakes and tsunamis etc., when he could have not created things that way makes him culpable.

It's a good thing that since you and I cannot hold him accountable…Him being God and all…that He held Himself accountable on the cross.

I think we have reached a point of agreement.

Needless to say, the fact God created evil people, evil in the form of things like earthquakes and tsunamis etc., when he could have not created things that way makes him culpable.

It's a good thing that since you and I cannot hold him accountable…Him being God and all…that He held Himself accountable on the cross.

I think we have reached a point of agreement.

How can you worship a being that you would likely not respect were they human?

Agreeing on that means that you must also agree that God is not all good, nor perfect.

LOL. Sorry, that's neither my premise, my conclusion, my concession nor my agreement. Nice try, though.

I don't see how you could support anything else.