A more preposterous hypothesis

[Willum]

Many of you have probably heard of Eric, the god-eating penguin.

"God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."
-- Mark

Eric is not the point of this post.
The point that:
I propose that there is nothing you can posit about god, or God, that a more preposterous claim can be made that still is more logical than God.

We can use Eric as a starting point, God is posited, Eric is posited, preposterously as demonstrating God cannot exist, yet still logically defeats the idea in both cases.

I believe this is true about anything that can be said about God.

Am I wrong? Can anyone think of anything?

[Willum]

Still another more preposterous solution is that the God of the Jews is a demon.

This explains more than if he were a god.

In the OT, Yahweh required sacrifices - like a demon. According to Judaic law, he still does.
If you ignored a god's requirement for sacrifice, woe betide, but ignore a demon's and things get better.

If course Yahweh tortured his people, impressing them into slavery and dispersing them, and killing 10/12th of them off - all the while having them claim he chose them.

Even in the New Testament, it may be interpreted as the demon god devouring the sinful parts of your very soul you give to him.

[1213]

...
In the OT, Yahweh required sacrifices - ...

I understand that you think that only demon would end evil and unrighteous life, but I would like to know, where it is said in the Bible that God requires sacrifices. I know there is rules for how to sacrifice, if person wants to do so, but where it is said that it is what God requires?

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213 in post #82]

As you do not know or understand your Bible, nor are you willing to examine it, even in the slightest, to discover the obvious information, I can not take your opinion about what, all things being equal, is most likely a misguided belief, seriously.

Comment as you like, but you have found yourself.

[Difflugia]

I understand that you think that only demon would end evil and unrighteous life, but I would like to know, where it is said in the Bible that God requires sacrifices. I know there is rules for how to sacrifice, if person wants to do so, but where it is said that it is what God requires?

If we assume that all of the sin offerings, peace offerings, and thanksgiving offerings are optional (which is still a hard sell and might not even be possible; I didn't bother reading through all of them), the agricultural festivals that require sacrifices are not. Leviticus 23 describes a number of required animal sacrifices as part of the festival of firstfruits. Only slightly less optional is the offering of the first-born. If either you have children or your livestock have any offspring, you must kill something for the LORD. These sections both include injunctions to not be "empty." In context, they obviously mean that one must have something to sacrifice by fire.

Exodus 23:14-17:

“You shall observe a feast to me three times a year. You shall observe the feast of unleavened bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib (for in it you came out of Egypt), and no one shall appear before me empty. And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field; and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when you gather in your labors out of the field. Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yahweh.

Exodus 34:19-20:

“All that opens the womb is mine; and all your livestock that is male, the firstborn of cow and sheep. You shall redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a lamb. If you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. No one shall appear before me empty.

[Willum]

The freewill hypothesis allows us to conjecture on the nature of Jesus.

Since God grants freewill, things only obey because of freewill.

With this rationale, Jesus could only command demons (to enter pigs, and flee from spirit wracked bodies) if they were willing to obey him.
That in turn would mean they had allegiance to him, and their protestations were a ruse.

Jesus was a double agent!

This is consistent with the Jews of the day rejecting him, and STILL rejecting him.
It is consistent with so few people getting into Heaven, as only a fraction of people, even believers will get to Heaven, and only a fraction of Abrahamists don't believe in Jesus.

It is consistent with Jesus teaching blasphemy as if it were good.

[Willum]

If God is omnipotent, why is there evil?

The only reason for things to be with an omnipotent being, is that it desired them that way.

So the real answer is there is no evil.
That is correct, there is no evil.

This is exactly the way things are supposed to be.
The appellation of evil, if the God exists, is just we humans whining because we don't like the reality of ultimate good.

[1213]

If God is omnipotent, why is there evil?

The only reason for things to be with an omnipotent being, is that it desired them that way....

By what the Bible tells, the reason is that people wanted to know evil and were expelled to this first death, where we can learn to know what evil truly means. Luckily this is only a short lesson and nothing of this “Matrix” can destroy our soul, which is why evil is not really any problem. And nice thing is also that those who reject evil and become righteous, have opportunity to go back to life with God, where there is nothing evil.

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213 in post #87]

So you agree with the more preposterous, in this case horrid hypothesis that it is the omniscient's will that we all learn what evil is, with the intent that the majority become sufficiently corrupted by it that the majority is unworthy of redemption?

In any case, you agree with the idea that this world is the greatest possible good, and our perception of evil is just our whining?

[Willum]

So either we evolved over 140 billion years, progressing from simple chemicals to proteins and lipids, then reproducing proteins and lipids, to life, to the way we are now.

Or 10,000 years ago we sprang from mud and a talking snake tricked us into being bad.

[1213]

...So you agree with the more preposterous, in this case horrid hypothesis that it is the omniscient's will that we all learn what evil is, … ...In any case, you agree with the idea that this world is the greatest possible good, and our perception of evil is just our whining?

I believe the world God created in the beginning was good. There was no evil. It was not necessary to learn to know evil this way, but I think it is good that God gave this opportunity. But this choice was people’s choice, not God’s, God only gave the opportunity. And because God did not create us originally to this “Matrix”, I do not think His will was that we must experience this.