What if God is weak?

[Lacewing]

Or maybe the entity is delusional?

Holy shit! Can you imagine what a God that has their shit together could do then?!?

Maybe there would be nothing to do because all would be complete and perfect and realized.

OMG. We are the result of some god's delusional state! It all makes sense!

[TimeSeeker]

OMG. We are the result of some god's delusional state! It all makes sense!

Of all the God-minds we could have ended up in, why oh why did we end up in THIS one ?!?

I blame Eve and the apple.

[Lacewing]

I blame Eve and the apple.

All right that's it... outside... right now... c'mon dog boy...

[Lacewing]

I blame Eve and the apple.

What if... God was at a party, and some scantily-clad Goddess named Eve came up to him, batted her eyelashes and smiled, and offered him a magic apple. Smiling, he took it, not losing eye contact... and took a big ol' bite to impress her... and then she walked away laughing... and the next thing he knew, he was laying on the floor having a weird trip, which JUST HAPPENS TO BE OUR REALITY!!!

I've gotta say, this is as valid an explanation as any others I've heard!

[TimeSeeker]

It is STILL Eve's fault!

I've gotta say, this is as valid an explanation as any others I've heard!

That's because contriving infinitely many plausible explanations is easy once you know how!

Testing them... Yeah. That is the science part.

[Lacewing]

It is STILL Eve's fault!

You don't seem like the type to blame others for the choices you make.

contriving infinitely many plausible explanations is easy once you know how!

Yes, as many people on this forum demonstrate continually and with delusional ferocity.

Testing them... Yeah. That is the science part.

Well, since human understanding cannot test beyond its own scope, all of the plausible explanations are fantasy. Seems helpful to be okay with that.

[TimeSeeker]

Well, since human understanding cannot test beyond its own scope, all of the plausible explanations are fantasy. Seems helpful to be okay with that.

I wish it was that easy! I spend most of my time trying to figure out which of my crazy ideas I can test and which ones I cannot...

Ethics gets in the way a lot.

[seeds]

How in the world could an entity that is capable of creating the entire universe...

(i.e., a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets, including all corporeal lifeforms)

...be thought of as being “weak”?

Because this is a shitty low rent universe?

Face it, Seeds, this universe is substandard work, just hopeless!

Almost all of it just plasma which manages to be both nasty and boring all at once. The rest is either dirty water, dead rock, dusty crap or enough space to keep these pointless objects from bumping into each other too much.

Have you ever entertained the possibility that what appears to be a pointlessness to some of the objects in the universe is their point?

Then we have this place, the Earth, where the whole schema is for everyone to eat everyone else. So then humans emerge to perhaps break the cycle and we turn out to be bigger dickheads than any of them.

The Idiot has had almost 14 billion years to get Its shit together. Should such obvious ineptitude be rewarded with worship?

Speculatively speaking, I suggest that the skeptical attitude you are demonstrating in your post is precisely the effect that the Creator of the universe is going for.

Therefore, what you refer to as being “substandard work” is, from my perspective, absolute creative perfection.
_______

[seeds]

...be thought of as being “weak”?

Very simply. You ask 'Why did the entity create The Universe?'

Already asked and speculatively answered in the Panentheism thread, starting with this post here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22608#p326237

Maybe it was just for fun. Or maybe The Universe was useful.

Or maybe the universe is the means through-which the entity replicates itself (again, see the abovementioned thread).

I know why I create "universes" (Computer Simulations) and Artificial Intelligences. So that I can leverage the faster passage of Time in a computer.

Computers do things MUCH faster than human minds can!
Maybe Universes do things MUCH faster than God minds can?

Well, if nothing else, a God can certainly delegate the tedious grunt-work of creation to suns, cells, and DNA.
_______

[TimeSeeker]

...be thought of as being “weak”?

Very simply. You ask 'Why did the entity create The Universe?'

Already asked and speculatively answered in the Panentheism thread, starting with this post here - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22608#p326237

Maybe it was just for fun. Or maybe The Universe was useful.

Or maybe the universe is the means through-which the entity replicates itself (again, see the abovementioned thread).

I know why I create "universes" (Computer Simulations) and Artificial Intelligences. So that I can leverage the faster passage of Time in a computer.

Computers do things MUCH faster than human minds can!
Maybe Universes do things MUCH faster than God minds can?

Well, if nothing else, a God can certainly delegate the tedious grunt-work of creation to suns, cells, and DNA.
_______

And who does God delegate the creation of suns, cells and DNA to?

Rinse repeat until you ask: and who does God delegate the creation of quarks and leptons to?

Lastly: who does God delegate delegation to?

Let somebody else run this place while I drink cocktails on the beach!

[Veritas Aequitas]

All (or most) religious people consider their deity to be strong, capable of omnipotence.

What if the opposite was the case - that God is only omnibenevolent, but not only does God lack omnipotence, s(he) is completely dependent on human goodwill to survive - in return God gives comfort.

If I had a choice, of which deity I prefer, I definitely do not prefer the alpha male-deity.

I prefer the weak omnibenevolent deity.

First God is an impossibility to be real.

Nevertheless theists insist God exists and is real.
I argued this delusion is due to some fundamental existential psychological impulses within the brain.

This theistic impulse comes in a continuum from very strong to weak.
From evidence we can infer the majority of theists* believed in the strong and strongest possible God, one who could assure them of eternal life in Heaven and avoid Hell.
* 4+ billion Abrahamic, 2+ billion other theists.

The default of those in the strong to strongest impulse is toward believing in the ontological perfect absolute God, i.e. a God than which no greater can exist.
Point is no strong theists would want any claim of God from another theistic religion to condemn their God as inferior and not capable to gauranteeing them eternal life in heaven.

Note, Islam claimed Allah is the Greatest of Great and other gods are inferior whom Allah will sent them to Hell.
To counter the Islamic God, the Christians will has no choice but to insist their God is also 'a God than which no greater can exists'.
The Christians will claim Allah is satanic, so to counter Muslims will have to insist their God is the ontological God, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists.
It would be the same with other theists who has a strong theistic impulse and settle for an ontological God.

On the other end of the continuum are those theists who has very weak psycholological theistic impulses. These theists can settle for a generic God with no personal claim of strength to assure and fulfill their salvation.
These are the pantheist and panentheistic God who are indifferent to the affairs of the world. The pantheists' God can be 'weak' but only in relative to the 'strong' of the personal God where omnipotence is necessary to ensure eternal life in paradise.

But the critical point is all theists along the continuum are affected and driven by the inherent psychological theistic impulse. The difference is a matter of degrees along the theistic continuum.

Thus for the majority of theists [>80%] their God cannot be claimed to be weak but their God in their views must be the strongest possible - the ontological God, i.e. a God than which no greater or stronger can exist.
But then in this catch-22 situation, such an ontological God is an impossibility.

[TimeSeeker]

First God is an impossibility to be real.

Nevertheless theists insist God exists and is real.

What if "God" is a subconscious construct more fundamental than the notions of "exists" and "real" ?

It is still in your head. It has agency - through your body. Is THAT real?

Thus for the majority of theists [>80%] their God cannot be claimed to be weak but their God in their views must be the strongest possible - the ontological God, i.e. a God than which no greater or stronger can exist.
But then in this catch-22 situation, such an ontological God is an impossibility.

This is just the human mind's desire to draw lines. It is another manifestation of the symbol-grounding problem. You have to grab something and call it 'real' so that you can measure up everything else against it.

Humans can make better humans, so a "maximum strength god" should be able to make a stronger god.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First God is an impossibility to be real.

Nevertheless theists insist God exists and is real.

What if "God" is a subconscious construct more fundamental than the notions of "exists" and "real" ?

It is still in your head. It has agency - through your body. Is THAT real?

That is only real to the extent of what is within a human brain and mind.
E.g. a schizo could claimed God ordered him to kill or do whatever, surely we cannot believe there is something more than what is from the activity of his brain/mind.

The typical God of the strong theists is that of a God that is real [listen and answers prayers and grant wishes] and absolutely independent of his creations, who created the whole Universe [in 7 days as claimed by some].

Thus for the majority of theists [>80%] their God cannot be claimed to be weak but their God in their views must be the strongest possible - the ontological God, i.e. a God than which no greater or stronger can exist.
But then in this catch-22 situation, such an ontological God is an impossibility.

This is just the human mind's desire to draw lines. It is another manifestation of the symbol-grounding problem. You have to grab something and call it 'real' so that you can measure up everything else against it.

Humans can make better humans, so a "maximum strength god" should be able to make a stronger god.

The crunch is the strong theists need the ontological God to assure them of eternal life in Paradise. This is driven by a very desperate existential drive to ensure they live forever.

[TimeSeeker]

E.g. a schizo could claimed God ordered him to kill or do whatever, surely we cannot believe there is something more than what is from the activity of his brain/mind.

1. What is the root cause of his schizophrenia?
2. Why do you assume he has privileged access to the root cause? What if him claiming that it is God is itself a product of the root-cause?

Tumor?

Having been through a manic episode myself that I can best describe as "religious experience" or "revelation" I can tell you that while I was in that state - I really believed I am Jesus. What caused it? I don't know! Looking back on it - it is scary as hell to recognize that I have no insight into most of my mind!

You are counting your hits, but not your misses. What about all the theists who don't go on killing sprees for God?

The typical God of the strong theists is that of a God that is real [listen and answers prayers and grant wishes] and absolutely independent of his creations, who created the whole Universe [in 7 days as claimed by some].

What if that is just a mistaken amalgamation of two phenomena into one word?. God answers community prayers. Still does to this day.
When people pray in Church their problems are broadcast to the wider community. That is to say "Hey I have this problem that I don't know how to solve" - and the person who knows how to solve it comes to the rescue.

The origins myth is immaterial. God didn't create the Earth and the Universe in 7 days. The Big Bang created the Earth and the Universe in 14 billion years. Yay! What created the Big Bang?

God of the gaps arguments are just manifestations of human epistemic uncertainty. Which is isomorphic to entropy.

Giving names to the things you don't understand is incredibly useful! You do it - I do it

The crunch is the strong theists need the ontological God to assure them of eternal life in Paradise. This is driven by a very desperate existential drive to ensure they live forever.

That is a psychological mind-hack. There is endless research on how the belief that you are being watched results in better behavior.
There is Temporal discounting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference ). People are short-sighted. And life sucks!

So how do I convince you to be a decent human being when by the time you are 65 your body falls apart and you are a grumpy old fart who wants to kill anybody who steps on his lawn? Threat of hell and promise of eternal joy in heaven. That's how - just hang in there, you are ALMOST dead!

[Reflex]

Maybe the question was asked tongue-in-cheek and maybe it came as a surprise that a professor of religion would write a book that tackles that very question, but it gives us reason to reexamine 1 Corinthians 1:25.