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?

[1213]

…
My favorite illogical rationale trumping the God thing answers the question:
"Why was there evil after the flood?"
I mean obviously God had selected his "good" Noah over the horrors he had allow to propagate to near utter majority, so clearly there was an opportunity to start over on par with the Garden of Eden.

So why didn't God do just that, use the Flood to fix the world, as it were?

By what the Bible tells, the goal was to get rid of the evil ones. The goal obviously was not to end this lesson, that will come later.

…God's champion spent 500 years building the boat, all the while Satan conspired and planned. Just like he planned to seduce Eve in the Garden, or the Angels from Heaven. When the time was right, Satan's champion, a wicked man with a wicked family, killed God's champion, and took their place on the Ark.

Really, and to what scriptures are all those claims based on?

…Is there anything this hypothesis does not explain better than the Bible does?

By what I know, opinions are worthless here.

[Willum]

I know it makes one cry to think that the official story is illogical, and does not work at all, and that a better and consistent picture is gained by an assumption.
However, compare the official version and the hypothesis, which works better?
The one that obviates scripture, or scripture?

Do you have a better reason why evil survived the Flood — FROM scripture?

No.
So Satan replacing God’s man makes better sense.

Just as Satan corrupted Eve, so to he corrupted the Ark.

OR, OR... it is just a bunch of fairytales.

This does go better with the theme that for every story in the Bible, there is another more logical one dismissing it.

Sad but true.

[emilynghiem]

Not in a reading mood, huh?
Yes, even though Eric is NOT the subject of the post, AND Eric is more preposterous, Eric is still more logical than God.
So though more preposterous, Eric makes more sense.
Very well we shall acknowledge the rest of the claim, that Eric is already established as a God-eating penguin. So using your logic, God must have eaten God, making God's existence a self-contradictory claim.

Which, if you had applied the Eric concept in the beginning, you would already have noticed. You have tried to use wordplay to summon a less preposterous, yet still preposterous god into existence. It doesn't work. God is preposterous, the gedankin concept of Eric is also preposterous. That Eric is more preposterous in magnitude, does not make a preposterous deity exist. In fact it should point out the opposite. Alexander the Great having an affair with Madame de Pompadour is less preposterous than either, but it doesn't mean it can happen.

Eric is just a concept that demonstrates god does not exist intuitively.

Dear @Willum
Whether you see Eric is more preposterous, more logical than God, etc.
If both are faith based, then both are equal.

This is like saying infinity is infinite,
so infinity + 1 is equally infinite,
and so is infinity + 100 equally infinite.

Once you get to infinity, you can add whatever quantity you want to it, and it is still infinity.
Counting from 1 to infinity....
or counting from 1,000,000 to infinity....
are both equally infinite sets of numbers.

Now, if YOU are not satisfied with these logically being
"equally faith based"
then something inside YOU is projecting a bias
where YOU want to interpret the answer
as Eric being more justified or logical than God.

If you look at all things as equally "faith based"
then these are all equally that, regardless which is more preposterous or which more logical.
It doesn't matter, since these are all faith based anyway.

BTW what I have noticed with human behavior that is NOT EQUAL,
when people forgive things, the DEPTH or WEIGHT of the positive focus
in their minds can be GREATER than the negative impact,
even though the NEGATIVE events and suffering are much GREATER than the POSITIVE
things the mind uses to focus on. It is often times NOT EQUAL.

I've seen this imbalance in cases of great loss.
The mother who suddenly lost her husband on the plane in 9/11
expressed how despite her worst nightmare and grief, losing her husband
without warning and in such a terrible way. Where all the politics and media swirling around
9/11 for endless days, months and years, added to her stress and constantly having
to answer to the public and media who wanted statements from the families and govt.

ALL that weighed tremendously like an endless nightmare.
But in her book she talked about having the prayers and support of friends
and family, even the LITTLE things they did for her that meant SO MUCH.

Of course there is NOTHING that can counter the loss of one's spouse
and especially not to violent crime without warning
and especially not to historic terror attack that is all over the news
and everywhere you could look.

NOTHING if you look at it logically can take that pain and nightmare away.
NOTHING can fix it.
But the mind finds ways to focus on little things
that make the person feel PEACE and feel thanks and love.
It can be MINOR gestures, and this somehow means the WORLD to someone.

THAT's where I find the mind does not treat things equally.
The faith based things that are POSITIVE can outweigh
the things that are far more negative.

So back to your two options of Eric and God,
your mind sees Eric as more logical and having more weight
than the notion of God. Since both are faith based, if you take
these totally neutrally, they both have 50/50 chances of existing or not.
Either existing or not existing, like binary, true or false.
That would be neutral.

But we do not have neutrality in real life looking at real people.
Other people see this, and even if all things are equal,
the bias in their minds may weigh MORE toward God.
And the equal but opposite with you
where you see ERIC as more logical or probable.

Either way these both remain faith based.
You or others may see one weighing more than the other,
and that is your own perception. People's minds are not
perfectly neutral or equal, so anyone's mind can do that!

[Willum]

So rather than face the issue you skirt it.

But let's bold face your faith claim.
This means you have equal weight in a faith-based God as you do a faith based Eric.

It is hard to maintain forum rules when confronted by this kind of statement.

You think it is OK that someone has good faith for something like Eric as God?
This precisely defeats your argument.

A faith based Eric remains more reasonable than a faith-based God, and Eric is preposterous.
This says everything.

[emilynghiem]

So rather than face the issue you skirt it.

But let's bold face your faith claim.
This means you have equal weight in a faith-based God as you do a faith based Eric.

It is hard to maintain forum rules when confronted by this kind of statement.

You think it is OK that someone has good faith for something like Eric as God?
This precisely defeats your argument.

A faith based Eric remains more reasonable than a faith-based God, and Eric is preposterous.
This says everything.

Dear @Willum
What I do after the first step, which is assess which people have which beliefs and accept that is what they believe.
The SECOND step is to discuss the benefits and applications of these beliefs.

So this is about the content and application of the terms or beliefs someone uses.

As long as the person is able to operate effectively,
and doesn't cause problems for themselves then project and impose problems on others,
usually "whatever language, system or representation" they use isn't a problem in itself.

Normally, I find as long as people are consistent with the use of their own system of beliefs,
they get along and can work out things with other people, even those using a different system.

Ability to coordinate or ALIGN between different systems
in order to communicate and reach a common understanding of truth
depends more on whether they can use that consistently to manage themselves and relations with others.
It's not dependent so much on WHICH system people use, but HOW it's used
to either work WITH others inclusive of differences, which tends to succeed,
or divide and reject which tends to fail.

So that's a DIFFERENT level than just arguing over who believes in which concept, Eric, God etc.

Do you want to discuss the next level, then?
What do you do AFTER two people have identified
what they call their beliefs (ERIC, GOD, etc. etc.)

(NOTE: what I do find predicts or correlates either
SUCCESS in reconciling between people of different systems is FORGIVENESS and ability to INCLUDE each other not reject
FAILURE in reconciling between different people or groups is UNFORGIVENESS or REJECTION of each other.

[Willum]

Why I am not sure.
Why should we discuss fairytales more prevalently than Star Wars or Harry Potter, once we have established those beliefs?

[emilynghiem]

Why I am not sure.
Why should we discuss fairytales more prevalently than Star Wars or Harry Potter, once we have established those beliefs?

Dear @Willum
We use the language that speaks to the audience we are addressing.

So yes, if all the people you and I know, understand the good/bad side of energy
as positive/negative by "using ideas from Star Wars about the good side vs bad side"
SURE, we COULD use that to explain to THAT audience
the difference between using HATRED/ANGER for power
vs. using GOOD/TRUTH/LOVE for power to overcome the negative.

It is still the same message about God's will being love casting out fear.
But yes, you could use a PARABLE to teach that, such as symbols from Star Wars
if THAT is the most effective way for people to understand
how "perfect love casts out fear" or good conquers evil.

However, what I have found are the most common languages
* Christianity / Scriptural laws for HEALING spiritually our relations with each other
* Constitutional laws and Civil laws for Justice for UNIVERSAL standards of collective society and democratic governance
* Psychology, Buddhist, or other Spiritual terms for teaching discipline and processes of the MIND

I find most people relate to one or more of the above,
and then they use "personal experiences and perceptions" to learn and grow.

So these can be used like PARABLES.
Yes, @Willum, any symbols or representations of
* God/Jesus/HolySpirit
* Mind/Body/Spirit
* Individual/Collective/Relationship
that people relate to, we can use THOSE symbols to
describe the same process of RECONCILING between these levels.

It STILL takes FORGIVENESS in order to CORRECT conflicts
and restore truth and harmony between people,
REGARDLESS which language we use.

The spirit of Truth/Justice/Peace fulfills the laws
universally for all people, regardless what "language for the laws"
each tribe uses to communicate with their own members and cultural traditions.

[RJG]

When people state their religious beliefs their audience should always question what they are being told to see if it is credible, most of it isn't. Telling people the Biblical god is good is a downright lie, what is attributed to the ghastly character is evil.

[emilynghiem]

When people state their religious beliefs their audience should always question what they are being told to see if it is credible, most of it isn't. Telling people the Biblical god is good is a downright lie, what is attributed to the ghastly character is evil.

Dear @RJG How I deal with this
is set up the terms used based on the concepts,
not FORCING the terms then ARGUING about the concepts attached
which seems backwards.

If we were trying to do a math proof
and someone is using G to mean +100 (positive 100)
but you are using G to mean -100 (totally opposite, negative value)
The two mathematicians could argue all day over
why each one is using the SAME VARIABLE G to mean two opposite things.

You CERTAINLY wouldn't try to do a proof using G to equal
"two conflicting values at the same time in the same proof"

So the first step is to decide on clear terms for the conflicting values
and NOT try to use the SAME word for BOTH!

If you see God as evil, that may be what Christians use Satan to mean.
If you see Jesus or Christianity being ABUSED to oppress and do injustice,
that may be what Christians use Antichrist to mean.

It does NO GOOD to argue what terms mean what.
If we don't agree, then let's use terms that make sense to both people!

So this is how I roughly translate Christian terms into secular values:
GOD = Love, Wisdom, Truth, Life, Nature, Universe
JESUS = Justice, Equal Protection under Law, Spiritual Reconciliation/Salvation
HOLY SPIRIT = Peace, Harmony uniting all Humanity, Comfort, Healing Spirit of Truth

SATAN = Fear of the Unknown, Distrust, Selfishness, Willful Ignorance
ANTICHRIST = Fear of Change or Loss of Control, Abuse of Authority/Laws, Injustice, Retributive Justice, False Govt, Oppression by Political Coercion
FALSE PROPHET = Fear of Conflict/Confrontation, Hate Speech, False Teaching, False Religion, Misrepresentation, Fraud/Slander

For nonreligious people who don't relate to the Symbolic Terms,
I find that most people have their own ways of expressing
what is damaging, wrongful, false, evil or immoral or criminal.

First step is to align the CONCEPTS and meanings.
Then find common terms, or agree to let both people use their own terms
and just translate back and forth.

If you run into conflicts, such as not being able to use the word GOD without
meaning something negative, or conflicting to two different people,
then it's better to use a different expression for both the positive perception
and the negative perception in order to communicate accurately without confusion.

[RJG]

?