A Slice Of Life

[theweaselking]

I mean, seriously, once you accept that
a) God exists
and
b) God is an asshole because He doesn't know better
and
c) God watches humanity
How can you NOT try to be the best example for God to follow that you can be?
The assumptions may be lousy but the conclusion is awesome, y'know?"

Comments

[spondee.livejournal.com]

That's kinda how I feel about my mom.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

a) God exists

You lost me.

Citation needed.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

See, that's a PREMISE. You're not allowed to question it, for the sake of argument.

IF you accept a,b,c, THEN you reach Q. And Q is hilarious!

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Actually, (b) is flawed. If (a) is true, under the standard definition of God, wherein God is Omniscient (knows all), then he would have to know better, and is choosing to be an asshole deliberately, and therefore Q fails, because you can't make an asshole improve by showing him what an asshole he is.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Be careful at zebra crossings.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

I'll keep that in mind. (You have to realize, that I actually have replied to "Do you believe in God?" with "Well, someone is out to get me." to a complete stranger.)

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"under the standard definition of God"

The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Show me a Christian sect that doesn't have God as omniscient, and I'll concede that point.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Was theweaselking speaking only of the Christian god?

[fearmeforiampink]

Probably. Given that, in current Western society, the Jewish and Christian god is the one that's usually refered to as just 'God'. Other gods are generally refered to by specific names.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

There is no "standard definition of God" - and we're assuming, for a moment, the flawed, imperfect, petty, jealous, angry, impatient Biblical God, who makes mistakes, fails to understand situations, feels remorse for his actions, and attempts to learn.

Once you've accepted *all three of the premises* to be true - they're your starting point. GIVEN those three premises, the conclusion that follows is interesting, to me.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

This argument, then, seems to start with "the bible accurately portrays god". If we go with that, then a) the "standard definition" that most people spew is wildly inaccurate (which we knew) and b) your conclusions are just about perfect. Though i can see being the best possible example out of spite.

such as: "Hey, you're the supreme being and you can't even be bothered to donate to charity. Here, let me take care of that for you, ass hole!"

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It doesn't SPECIFICALLY need the biblical God. It just works perfectly well with it.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Well, that's true. but most other examples of gods that are childish and have a lot of human failings are not omnipotent (Zeus, for example, is an asshole, but is also not all powerful OR all knowing). So he doesn't fall as much into the category of someone who even *could* solve all the world's problems, let alone *should*.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Who said anything about solving all the world's problems? Zeus *not being quite such an asshole* would be an amazing improvement, but standard Zeus fails B and partially C: Zeus is an asshole because he likes being an asshole, and he only "watches" humanity in the sense that he's checking out the babes and making sure nobody disses him.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

I think that omniscience or at least near-omniscience is pretty much required.

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Actually the standard definition of god is 1, they possess a thorough and full understanding of quantum gravity, 2, possesses a full knowledge of all the verses of all national anthems that ever have exist and ever will exist and be able to sing them on cue, 3, they must understand the offside rule.

Given those 3 points, god is, if not omniscient, equivalent to omniscient in the same way 0.999... is equivalent to 1, because only an effectively omniscient entity could ever truly understand the offside rule, and therefore can be taken to be omniscient in matters that matter.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Best definition ever.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

God is stalking you. He sees everything you do, and judges it. And you haven't even been out on one date and HE LOVES YOU.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Great googly moogly. I think you've just stumbled upon the missing key to the Creed of Coyote.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

I think you just summed up CG Jung's "Answer to Job" in the shortest way I have ever seen.

[maelorin]

awesome.

*headdesk*

[almostwitty]

Statement b) is not needed. Besides, if God is an asshole, why would you want to be the best example for him to follow?

My ex-gf is an asshole. Even if she were able to watch every step I make, why would I want to only do good things just for her benefit?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Because of C - God *IS* watching you and he *IS* paying attention to you. And he's not being a jerk because he wants to be, he's being a jerk because he doesn't understand what "being a jerk" means.

And, because God not being a jerk any more would be an objectively good thing.

So you act in the way you think God should act, in the hopes that God will learn how to not be a jerk.

[almostwitty]

But if the omnipotent is already a jerk, why would he/she need or want to learn how not to be a jerk?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Who knows?

What we know is that he IS a jerk and that he is a jerk *because he doesn't know how not to be a jerk*.

Like the little kid who wishes you into the cornfield.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

To be clear: I'm not arguing the existence of God or the non-malicious nature of any God who might exist. I'm just summarising what I thought was a pretty interesting argument.

teaching by example

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

Or you could just walk around town pointing at people and shouting "Shazpow! Now you have a million dollars and/or hilarious superpowers!"

Re: teaching by example

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If you were actually giving them millions and superpowers, that could work!

Re: teaching by example

[zenmonkeykstop.livejournal.com]

For all God knows, maybe I am, and they're just not using them.

I suppose I'm thinking more of a toddler God than an asshole God, but is there really that much of a difference? Unless he's crosschecking every molecule and every Swiss bank account, he can't be sure, so in that case the simplest thing to do is just emulate me. This also means I don't end up getting all the props and making God jealous. In fact if he is an asshole, he'll probably millionize/laser-cock-ize ten times as many people as I "do", just to make the point.