"to show submission"
that says it all already
"only kind to believer"
how about one person who was raised on another religion and never even got to know the "true" one? how is he supposed to magically find out? how would that be fair?
"how such a powerful being would act"
thats the thing. Logic debunks the existence of any kind of religious god. If you are everything, absolute power, then you would be already perfection. All gods of religions are depicted showing emotion, like love, anger, didsapointment... emotions are already a sign of imperfection. And things like anger or dissapoitnent happen when things dont result like you wanted. If things ever fail to be like you wish wherebis your fucking omnipotence and absolute power? An absolute being also would take no action, for he would be everything and absolute already and wouldnt either br bound to any dimension like time either. If everything already is, change is not needed. Change is needed if something has to be improved, which if you are almighty, wouldnt happen. A god that takes the steps to create universe, and perform changes on it and even be dissapointed with some results, is not almighty, is not absolute and therefore cant be the god.
The idea of a god is a logical paradox.
"That says it all already."
Says what exactly? When you believe in a omnipotent and omniscient being i dont think a submission wanting god would sound too extreme.
how about one person who was raised on another religion and never even got to know the "true" one? how is he supposed to magically find out?
I cant really defend religion againts these questions, i dont think a megalomaniac god would care about "fairness".
"Thats the thing. Logic debunks the existence of any kind of religious god. If you are everything, absolute power, then you would be already perfection. "
I like the take of Aquinas on this one.
“Every contingent being was caused by something else that happened before it and so either there’s an infinite causal chain of contingent beings extending backwards or there’s a first cause, something that wasn’t caused by anything else but which started everything else. There can’t be an infinite causal chain extending backwards, though, which means that there must be first cause, something that wasn’t caused by anything else but which started everything else. Therefore, God exists.”
1-God exists.
2. Every contingent being was caused by something else that happened before it.
3. Either there’s an infinite causal chain of contingent beings extending backwards or there’s a first cause, something that wasn’t caused by anything else but which started everything else.
4. There can’t be an infinite causal chain extending backwards.
5. There’s a first cause, something that wasn’t caused by anything else but which started everything else.
On infinite causal chain extending backwards:
"Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false…."
Even though critiques like to call this equivocate i am inclined to believe that is still holds its ground.
I know that this is a argument for start of existence and god, not religious god. It is the one of the most basic arguments that made for god ater all.
"All gods of religions are depicted showing emotion, like love, anger, didsapointment... emotions are already a sign of imperfection. And things like anger or dissapoitnent happen when things dont result like you wanted.
I think the word you are looking for is "anthropomorphic god", the problem is that is there another organism that cant show "humanistic attribute"? By saying "human attribute" you imply anthropocentric bias, these "attrabutes" we use are just classification methos that can be used to describe anything when used not as literary device.
"An absolute being also would take no action, for he would be everything and absolute already and wouldnt either br bound to any dimension like time either. "
He also could change his being, substance of the very dimension and laws aswell. How do you know that he would take no action?
"everything already is, change is not needed. Change is needed if something has to be improved, which if you are almighty, wouldnt happen. A god that takes the steps to create universe, and perform changes on it and even be dissapointed with some results, is not almighty, is not absolute and therefore cant be the god."
I dont think an omnipotent being would be limited to such limits, even to himself. If you cant create even superior creations that you currently create would you be truly omnipotent?
"The idea of a god is a logical paradox."
I dont think an omnipotent being would be limited by inferior human logic.
