Sketches on Atheism

On the Problem of Good

Adapted from my new book, On the Problem of Good.

The staggering amount and variety of evil in this world should not be the source of enormous confusion for believers in God.

The world has not gone spectacularly wrong. The machine has not malfunctioned. There has been no mistake, no misstep, no ineptitude or imbecilic blunder in the design. The evil which is amplifying through Creation is there for a purpose, there by design, growing, evolving, and it is evolving because the architect of this world—the Creator—not only draws some manner of critical pleasure from its existence, but more importantly, craves its augmentation over time.

This world inside which sentience has awoken, uninvited, is the stuff of all nightmares, a living daymare, a defiled experiment draped in ethical ugliness, but between those stubbornly long periods of anxiety and calamity, good exists. Between those repeated seasons of uncertainty and ruin, good pushes through.  Between those ever-so faithful cycles of total war where even grass and livestock are considered the enemy, good can flourish, and the existence of this good presents what is arguably the only coherent and consistent argument which can be forwarded by sceptics challenging the existence of a being who for a million tiny sensible reasons cherishes His anonymity and may be identified as simply The Owner of All Infernal Names: The Problem of Good.

It is asked: If The Owner of All Infernal Names is omnipotent and omnimalevolent, why does He allow good in the world? Either He cannot prevent it, in which case He is not omnipotent, or He chooses to allow it, in which case He is not omnimalevolent.

To even the most casual observer the contradiction found in the Problem of Good appears valid and persuasively damning. Maximum evil, in possession of maximum power, could not possibly tolerate the presence of good. Even a little good—some pleasant smell or pleasing vista—seemingly negates the thesis of unblemished evil, and the proposition that good exists because the maximally-equipped Creator has somehow lost control over some (or all) of his creation is conspicuously absurd.

There are no mistakes. There can be no mistakes. There is neither room nor capacity for little rebellions, let alone the yielding of even the smallest fraction of Creation to some obnoxious insurgency, and if something is error-free then what exists exists for a reason, a purpose.

The problem though persists. It lingers in the mind like a weeping sore, and if one seeks an excuse-free explanation for this world (which must be the single-most important objective of any honest inquiry into the nature of existence; of why there is something rather than nothing) then the problem demands attention.

On the Problem of Good, print and eBook available through Amazon and CreateSpace. And do please pen a review. It’d be hugely appreciated. My apologies, but if you’re outside the U.S and can’t order the eBook through Amazon.com then please buy the print version (which contains an added, hidden treasure) through Amazon, or even better, at the Createspace store, and I’ll email you the eBook file (ePub or Mobi) free which you can upload directly to any e-reader, including Kindle. Sorry about that, but Amazon has a strange (unworkable) set-up for anyone publishing outside the U.S.

 

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “On the Problem of Good

  1. Your publisher is undoubtedly, Hallucination Station.

    It’s amazing enough that human beings can hallucinate such gibberish in sufficient quantities to fill enough empty pages to call a book.

    What is even more amazing is that so many people join in on the hallucination.

    Off course, I cite the first paragraph of this post as my reference.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. ‘Time’ is a concept meaningless in the context of ‘God’.
    Good ol’ God is omnipresent and eternal (both ways, from any ‘point’) and has no past, or future; merely an eternal Now. So can anyone such actually ‘crave’ anything?

    Such trifles aside, I hope you do well with The Book. I pray fervently to whatever gods may be for your success—not that it will make any difference, unless of course ol’ God wrote it into the script aeons ago before He created everything (jeez, it’s tough being a religious cynic) (oops, a cynic of religion) I tell ya~!

    And it’s nice to see you blogging again. Boom boom!

    Liked by 2 people

      • Having slept on it with three dozen aspirins I’ve concluded that the one thing He (She, It) cannot do is de-create the whole mess.

        Or any particle of it.

        Like

      • Close, but well done. An uncreated aseitic being cannot not be. The next post deals with this, but in essence:

        Unable to die, powerless to be no more, incapable of even experiencing the thrill of the fear of approaching annihilation, it was inevitable that a non-contingent aseitic being (that seminal consciousness: God) would come, eventually, to gather and focus His impossible powers to contrive artificial environments fixed between concepts He, the Creator, could never touch, but could impose on a synthetic scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Inside these sealed-off worlds (these petri dishes) profoundly ignorant avatars could be cultured and grown to probe and explore this extraordinary curiosity; evolving surrogates raised like experimental animals, and through whom He, the Creator, could taste the fear He alone could never savour, feel the suffering He alone could never know, and meet every pedigree of oblivion denied to Him by dying vicariously.

        Like

      • I didn’t “get” half of what you just wrote, but something you said brought this question to mind … if the god the Christians believe in cannot die and if this same god made humans “in our own image,” then why do humans die? (I mean, outside of the “reasons” expressed in the bible about the garden antics and such.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wouldn’t Christians point to the soul as the eternal bit?

        I’ll put up the next post in a couple of days, and that explains a little better why there is something rather than nothing.

        Or, better still, you can read the book, cause its all in there 🙂

        Like

      • The Christians can say what they want … the fact of the matter is, the entity known as “God” is eternal, yes? Thus, as its created beings, we should be eternal as well. For them to counteract this by bringing in the “soul” is flim-flam.

        I’m sure your book is superb, excellent, spell-binding, but I pretty much shy away from “religious” books. I read so many of them during research for my own book, I got burned out. Now my subject of choice leans towards sci-fi (not vampires, zombies, etc.) — mostly post apocalyptic. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Okayyyyyy … I have to admit defeat here—none of my resources defines ‘aseitic ‘ although everyone seems to be using it all over the web. (Even good ol’ Google asks “Did you mean ‘ascetic’? I ignore the question, being too dum and too humble to answer lest I betray my ignorance). (Nobody wants to appear dum’ on Google …)

        Like

  3. Congratulations John! And I have just ordered it! I hope this also means you’ll be back blogging a little more, as I miss your posts!

    From your descriptions it seems like a clever argument. Essentially using the same logic as Christians use to justify evil, but starting from a the position of your previous book of a malevolent God. Once again, I feel any theists who do read it, will fail to see that logical frameworks can be applied in the exact same way from any unverified premise. They will argue with you tooth and nail, and every time they do, you win. lol

    Liked by 3 people

  4. This topic is a great example of how we think determines what we think.

    The identical form of the argument with reversed terms demonstrates why the ontological argument is vacuous of knowledge but full to the brim with assumptions and beliefs that are divorced from reality. The argument relies on premises assumed to be true AND reflective and/or descriptive of reality. That’s the core problem. How do we know if the premises in the ontological argument are true?

    The point is, how can we do this?

    Well, imposing heartfelt belief and confidence in that belief (because we are assured by men in dresses and funny hats that such belief is considered pious) is a piss poor way as this thesis demonstrates. In fact, imposing faith-based belief on reality to support a faith-based belief about reality is a guaranteed way to fool one’s self, to mistake one’s ignorance for knowledge… as SoM and others of his pious ilk consistently demonstrates. What is needed is an independent source for testing the premises other than our imported beliefs about them. But the faith-based method has already dismissed reality’s role and has substituted faith as a virtuous ‘alternative’.

    Yeah, obviously that’s not going to work… obvious to those who actually think well, that is.

    So, as soon as one recognize that certain premises cannot be tested or are so poorly defined in concrete terms that only presumption about them must be accepted for them to make any sense of meaning, we know we’ve moved away from knowledge about reality and into a fictitious axiomatic system of logical proofs that may or may not have any relationship to reality at all. And the problem here is that there is no means available once one accepts a faith-based method to test them because reality itself is not an axiomatic system..That’s why reversing the terms in the ontological argument and using the identical defenses of theists to ward off reality’s arbitration of its premises reveals the heart of the problem.

    Well done, JZ. You are a delightful thorn that just keeps giving.

    Liked by 7 people

    • The Ontological argument (word for word from Craig’s own writing) is presented in the first book. As read:

      1. It is possible that a maximally wicked being exists.
      3. If it is possible that a maximally wicked being exists, then a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world.
      4. If a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
      5. If a maximally wicked being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
      6. Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists in the actual world.
      7. Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists.
      8. Therefore, the Omnimalevolent Creator exists.

      Convincing stuff, and Craig calls this the most definitive proof for God.

      “we know we’ve moved away from knowledge about reality and into a fictitious axiomatic system of logical proofs that may or may not have any relationship to reality at all.”

      Heathen! There’s no fiction in this. Aggravetics is the scientific analysis of 13.82 billion years of history, of this world, this complexity machine, and it arrives at the inevitable (demonstrable) conclusion: this world is a defiled experiment draped in ethical ugliness.

      But thanks… If Aggravetics doesn’t prick a thumb or two it’s not True Aggravetics.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Of course I do recognize the Problem of Good to be the flip version of the Craig’s response to the Problem of Evil but I wanted to point out the same root is grounded in the ontological argument… considered by many theists to be the slam dunk argument for ‘demonstrating’ some creator god’s existence.

        I expect your next challenge will be to find a way to flip the ‘something cannot come from nothing… except god, therefore god’ argument. I look forward to it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I know you know, just wanted to paste it 🙂

        Oh, this book does explain why there is something (this artificial world) rather than nothing, but no, I’m not quite at the level of Advanced Aggravetics to explain where TOOAIN came from.

        Like

      • I’m just not smart enough or “philosophical” enough to find the Craigian argument remotely convincing. It seems to make amazing leaps from one tiny river rock to the next slipper foothold, but there is no reason to make these leaps unless one is crossing to a predetermined opposite shore.

        I love it!

        Plus, I just love saying “OM-NEE-MUH-LEV-OH-LENT” It just rolls off the tongue. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Hope you are going to be blogging more now that you have published the book.
    My only contention is with your point on suffering. I think suffering or pain is what is positive. Happiness is fleeting and usually is a lack of something.
    I loved the book.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. John!

    So NOW I know why you’ve been so very quite lately — you’ve been writing; writing an excellent work I might add! 😉

    Reading this “Intro” I kept saying to myself, “Self, the pattern of reasoning this man/author is going through to explain(?) Good, the hoops being jumped through, are basis for a full psych evaluation!” Hahaha! You get my gist, yes? 😉

    I believe I must purchase this book Sir. A must read for me; an ENJOYABLE read!

    So does this mean you’ll be back around the various blogs in the blogosphere?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Timely … I just ‘ran silent, ran deep’ to avoid answering the door to Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah’s Witlesses or whatever the urban predators are that hunt in packs these days.

    Dammit, I should have answered … that one (no, not the guy one) was actually rather attractive …

    bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger bugger and dammit too~!

    MEMO TO GOD:
    Sir … your timing was out. No wonder you are a diminishing resource …

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Since I haven’t read the book perhaps a critique of your post…

    The first paragraph is true. The “staggering amount and variety of evil in this world” [is not a] “source of enormous confusion for believers in God”.

    The second paragraph supposes the Creator designed evil for his own glory. This is a twisted untruth. To vision a God who would create us so that he can delight in our suffering is twisted. It’s a belief that manifests itself in a rebellious heart. It’s a song sung by many who are hurting and have suffered a tragedy and blame God.

    The third paragraph delves to explain the thinking of a deranged mind. You use many phrases associated to derangement; a living daymare, ethical ugliness, anxiety and calamity, uncertainty and ruin, faithful cycles of total war, The Owner of All Infernal Names, and The Problem of Good. All of it is a human projection and invention onto reality. The reality is that the Bible tells us explicitly how much God loves us and how we should live. That is, we are told to love, forgive, be charitable and to FIGHT evil.

    In the New American Standard Version, love is mentioned 348 times — 133 times in the Old Testament and 215 times in the New Testament. In the New International Version, it is mentioned 551 times — 319 times in the Old Testament and 232 times in the New Testament. There are 538 instances of the word “love” in the New Revised Standard Version, 317 in the Old Testament and 221 in the New Testament.

    The remainder of the post speaks to the “problem of good”. More twisted untruth.

    I see no academic reasoning for this book from your post, only some one who has been hurt and out for a grudge. You take a poetic license, I get that, but if some one hurting lands here and is persuaded to also hate the only real thing that can give them utter peace, well then, I guess your happy. Thank you for allowing people like me to have a say.

    As a by-thought…I had a thought all this time of silence on your blog that perhaps you were on your knees but you and all your fellows are still worth praying for. ALWAYS. I’ll pray for you until the last second.

    Peace. Roy.

    Like

    • As your commentary goes fabulously wrong in your third paragraph I’ll just ignore the rest, and wait for you to actually read the book, after which, hopefully, you’ll be in a postiion to offer a (possibly) intelligent and (otherwise) informed critique.

      FYI, there is a formal challenge presented which you’re more than welcome to try and tackle. I’m certain you can’t, but I’m open to being surprised.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I love humor John. I’m sure you read it all, but liar is harsh…

        What I wrote stands and your reply speaks to it.

        Post your challenge John I’ll give you my best. Surely this book isn’t going to make your any real money since you only have about a dozen people commenting.

        After all, you posted the challenge from the last book that made you a couple hundred dollars.

        Like

      • If I wanted to write a book that’d make my bank account sing (as opposed to a work that pushed the human condition) I’d cast aside my moral compass and shamelessly pen a story directed to U.S. evangelicals, telling a wonderful tale of how I was once a heathen, angry at Yhwh, confused, lost, debauched, empty, then found Jesus and everything since has been rainbows and unicorns and iced tea.

        I could knock out such a yarn in a month or two, easily, and it would probably sell millions because I’d hit every mark, over and over, that would make gullible evangelicals desperate for confirmation, like yourself, nod and smile and feel good as I poured thick warm chocolate over those frightful contradictions you live and struggle with every day.

        My bank account, however, is doing perfectly fine without that, and I like my moral compass pointing just the way it is.

        The challenge is at the end of the book. It feeds from all those pages that precede it… you know, those pages filled with words and sentences and paragraphs and chapters that give it, the challenge, meaning and context.

        Take up the challenge or not, Roy/Bobby/or whoever you might be posting as later.

        Your choice.

        Liked by 2 people

    • If God didn’t “…the Creator designed evil for his own glory. This is a twisted untruth….” do so, then who did?

      And if the creation of evil can be laid upon poor old Satan … then where did he come from? Did Satan likewise create itself, from nothing, like God is said to have done … or did the Prime Architect design and create what turned out to be a flawed product?

      Like

      • Your over thinking it. Try not twisting the reality we were given. You and I and everyone else needs to be good. One bad apple is evil hurting someone. It isn’t anything outside our reality that perpetrates evil, it is humans. It is real flesh and blood that breeds evil.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It isn’t anything outside our reality that perpetrates evil, it is humans. It is real flesh and blood that breeds evil.

        Precisely! But it’s not just humans. We have 13.82 billion years to survey and assess. As the thesis details (noted here in this short post): The evil which is amplifying through Creation is there for a purpose, there by design, growing, evolving, and it is evolving because the architect of this world—the Creator—not only draws some manner of critical pleasure from its existence, but more importantly, craves its augmentation over time.

        The challenge, Roy, is for you to actually address this observation… but to do so from a position of strength, meaning, by knowing exactly what the thesis says first before spewing an ignorant word salad.

        Here’s a hint as to the state of your ignorance: the Creator is not “evil.”

        Like

      • I would add Argus that my first post was not to imply that John is actually deranged, although I used that word several times.

        The disconnect comes from the idea that a God who gave us life and a wonderful sustaining place to live, is responsible for our willful rejection of his instructions to love and give.

        The premise that a created being who rebels and disobeys is somehow the creators fault is madness. It smacks against the written word, ignoring instructions and then blaming the instructor for failure is madness.

        Like

      • LeRoy:
        I try to see, but keep coming up against basic realities—namely God’s three defining qualities of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

        God knew before He created Creation what would happen; everywhere and every time, yet still He set the wheels in motion.

        That, Sir … wasn’t nice.

        Like

      • A wise man once murmured to me words to the effect that—

        “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The two-eyed a monstrosity …”

        But moving on, now quoting your own good self— “The premise that a created being who rebels and disobeys is somehow the creators fault is madness. It smacks against the written word, ignoring instructions and then blaming the instructor for failure is madness.”

        Oops. Knowing in advance that His lovely organic robot would rebel (I blame the software, myself) and create Evil—He still goes ahead? That’s not good …

        Like

      • To me, it seems like Yahweh screwed up once and decided to double down and REALLY screw up. Even after multiple slaughters an punishments and floods, he just can’t seem to get it right?

        Liked by 1 person

    • ah, the theist who claims he is praying for atheists. What are you praying for, Roy? That we are mind raped and have to start agreeing with you? That this god will reveal itself? Most Christians will refuse to say what they are praying for, since that will show, without a doubt that their prayers don’t work. And then where would they be?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Bugger … I couldn’t find an appropriate ‘Reply’ button. Anyway, on with the show:

    Lacking in divine abilities, and being strictly limited to my own dimensions … I still don’t fathom why an ‘omniscient’ need create those blessed petrie dishes to vicariously gain experience?

    Or does good ol’ God have one extra ace up His sleeve—He can disassociate His powers at will? (Wow … that can’t be easy …) (not even for someone who can do anything, at will).

    Like

      • We are driven to survive (most of us) by our inborn programming. Your Creator gives us no real choice but to want to exist.

        But, your question does not answer John’s main points: TOOAIN may have logically created us as a source of amusement. As your own co-religionists so tiresomely claim, we exist only for His glory. Given the reality of the physical universe (floods, tornadoes, disease, Sun going nova) John’s thesis makes more sense than yours does

        Liked by 2 people

  10. John, you state, “The evil which is amplifying through Creation is there for a purpose, there by design, growing, evolving, and it is evolving because the architect of this world—the Creator—not only draws some manner of critical pleasure from its existence, but more importantly, craves its augmentation over time”.

    Everything about your thesis on evil is only your impression. It’s unverifiable and contradicts what is written about God’s attributes.

    My explanation follows, sorry it’s a bit long.

    ***

    At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must have been created by God. However, evil is not a “thing” like a rock or electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole, but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all He created was good. One of the good things God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a “thing” that required God to create it.

    Perhaps a further illustration will help. If a person is asked, “Does cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes”. However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.

    If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming”. God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him.

    As finite human beings, we can never fully understand an infinite God. God looks at things from a holy, eternal perspective. We look at things from a sinful, earthly, and temporal perspective. Why did God put man on earth knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? These questions cannot be adequately answered this side of eternity. What we can know is whatever God does is holy and perfect and ultimately will glorify Him. God allowed for the possibility of evil in order to give us a true choice in regards to whether we worship Him.

    Is it that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a evil God? Most view the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

    Immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil? Isn’t evil the absence of good?

    If there is evil in the world, John, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.

    Your proposition that, “the Creator—not only draws some manner of critical pleasure from its existence [evil], but more importantly, craves its augmentation over time”, totally contradicts what is written about his attitude towards us.

    The entire passage found in 1 John 4:7-21 speaks of God’s loving nature.

    Love is not merely an attribute of God, it is his very nature. God is not only loving, he is fundamentally love. God alone loves in the completeness and perfection of love.

    So, if God is love and we, his followers, are born of God, then we will also love. God loves us, so we must love one another.

    A true Christian, one saved by love and filled with God’s love, must live in love toward God and others.

    Love is the true test of Christianity. We believe that the character of God is rooted in love. We receive God’s love in our relationship with him. We experience God’s love in our relationships with others.

    Peace be with you all.

    Like

    • Gosh. How lucky is John to have a “scholar” like you to explain it all to him! Just think! If not for you, he would have gone stumbling through life … not knowing the “true story.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • It’s unverifiable and contradicts what is written about God’s attributes.

      It’s not only verifiable, but demonstrable. We are all hydrogen’s diaspora. We are all, quite literally, discrete, momentarily unique, progressively more complicated incidents in that first elements free roaming, snowballing adventure. But, of course, you won’t understand what that means because you haven’t read the thesis… so you have absolutely no idea what you’re even addressing.

      I didn’t read past that sentence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • A thesis statement is a short statement, usually one sentence, that summarizes the main point or claim of an essay, research paper, or in this case, a book you are selling.

        Your post, which you have enhanced on from your Amazon book description, sums up your thesis just fine.

        “The evil which is amplifying through Creation is there for a purpose, there by design, growing, evolving, and it is evolving because the architect of this world—the Creator—not only draws some manner of critical pleasure from its existence, but more importantly, craves its augmentation over time.”

        That is one sentence and can serve as a thesis.

        This belief turns you to question why there is “good”. Since there is “good”, and you believe Creator “craves evil”, then you must take it to your next conclusion;

        “It is asked: If The Owner of All Infernal Names is omnipotent and omnimalevolent, why does He allow good in the world? Either He cannot prevent it, in which case He is not omnipotent, or He chooses to allow it, in which case He is not omnimalevolent”.

        Hence the Title, “The Problem Of Good”.

        From your post, and Amazon introduction, I find no academic or journalistic investigation relevant to warrant buying and reading the book. You use lofty words trying to sound intelligent and with some type of authority, when it is really just a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.

        I understand the challenge and accepted it with what I think is a good rebuttal yet you simple ignored it.

        “At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must have been created by God. However, evil is not a “thing” like a rock or electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good”.

        Everything you wrote about on the attributes of God contradict what was written. When asked, what was the greatest command, the Lord said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets”.

        Like

      • And again, you have demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the basic premise. I will grant you one thing, though, Roy: you are astonishingly arrogant.

        So, pretend you understand the thesis. Pretend you think I’m writing about your pantomime god. Pretend you even know what the formal challenge is. If this make-believe makes you feel good, then great. Play with your little strawman dolls all you like. Just please don’t waste my time with your pantomimes.

        If, however, you wish to engage the subject as an adult who knows what they’re actually talking about, and can address the actual subject matter, then do so. I will be more than happy to engage you on the subject. Indeed, I would be genuinely thrilled to read any formal rebuttal, and would treat any such formalised work with the appropriate gravity.

        Like

    • as many times as you might want to claim that this version of god of yours is loving, the evidence shows nothing of the kind, not even that it exists. This god, as defined by the bible, doesn’t even succeed in meeting the definition of love *in* the bible. 1 Corinthians 13.

      “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.”

      Not patient, not kind, terribly envious to the point of being murderous. Terribly proud on what it does (see the bragging in Job). Breaks its promises, does everything for itself. Easily angered, and throws tantrums. Keeps a record on *everybody* per the claims of “books of life” in Revelation. Murders people for others “sins, and when it screws up, whines, murders everyone and starts again with another plan that this omnipotent being is sure will work.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “and contradicts what is written about God’s attributes” …

      Maybe (and who can possibly argue?) it does contradict what is written about God’s attributes — but what’s written about ol’ God’s attributes, and His actual behaviours are two different things entirely.

      “Hey, God~!”

      “Yes, Argus?”

      “Sir—what is said about contradictions?”

      “Bugger … er, let me see, I have it graved down in some stones here somewhere … aaaah, yes. It is said that “Contradictions can not exist—only false premises exist“.

      “Thank you, Sir, blessings be upon thee. And I rest my case.”

      “Good luck with it Argus—I can never get through to them fundamentalists myself~!”

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Well, Zande I bought your book. I place such books as yours in my collection of un-convincing tirades (as all books like yours are) against the concept or belief in God. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that you are busy writing which has the two-fold purpose of supplying more ammunition for me and of keeping you off the streets where you might hurt yourself or someone else. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • (fixed)

      There is an astonishing amount of blindness displayed to maintain a belief in some form of an active ‘good father.’ For example, early on in the book I point to the fact that it was only 210 million years ago that life stumbled upon the mechanisms (enkephalin and opioid receptors) with which it could even begin to experience something resembling “happiness.” That means for 3.5 BILLION years, life twisted in perpetual agony without as much as the hope for the chance for corporeal relief. Could a “good father” oversee such a world?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s