Replies

"It seems to me that you are assuming omnipotence and/or omniscience on the part of your hypothetical God. Neither are necessary conditions of being Aquinus's uncaused cause. A lesser but still functional God who created the universe and the people on planet earth might create the malevolent being in error, or as an experiment."

Very neat argument, but I'm afraid we're misunderstanding each other. In order for god to have created the universe he does not have to be omnipotent nor omniscient. He merely has to be powerful enough to create everything that there is, and smart enough to be capable of mature thought. While I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent god, realizing that you've created something that will doom your own creation, is something that can easily be discerned. And of course remedying that problem is perhaps just as easy for this supreme being that created everything.

"Also to say that the God that creates beings cares about them is to presume your conclusion. You cannot be certain of this. Do we care about the bacteria in a petri dish? Yet God would be far further above us than we are above the bacteria. The Christian God of Love does care, but that God is only one possibility"

Also very good, however; a god would care about his creation in much the same way a biologist would care about a new strain of microscopic organism. If some third party were to enter the laboratory with the sole purpose of overturning the petri dish, the biologist would stop this third party.

" (though the truth as you see it?)"

correct.

"At the end of the day I think we are going to disagree on this one too. I think that Pascal's wager as stated with its 4 possible outcomes is so much simpler than the true set of possibilities with their varying possible outcomes that it is not a useful argument, unfortunately."

But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.

But, if nothing else, you are better off to believe there is a god than to believe there is none.

You don't benefit unless you believe in the right God and the right interpretation of God. If you accept the logic of thos on these threads who argue for creationism, you must belong to the correct sect and denomination to be counted as a believer. If you deviate in your interpretation of Genesis, you will be damned forever.

While I do believe in an omniscient and omnipotent god, realizing that you've created something that will doom your own creation, is something that can easily be discerned. And of course remedying that problem is perhaps just as easy for this supreme being that created everything.

The statements that it can easily be discerned and that the supreme being would bother to remedy it if it did discern it are a pair of presumed conclusions. Even if there is a creator it is entirely likely that in the universe as a whole human beings are a totally insignificant and irrelevant accident as far as the creator is concerned.

...a god would care about his creation in much the same way a biologist would care about a new strain of microscopic organism. If some third party were to enter the laboratory with the sole purpose of overturning the petri dish, the biologist would stop this third party.

In this case your extension of my analogy works against you. The experiment (life on earth/the petri dish) may be already completed and the interesting results are noted. The scientist/God turns away and doesn't care as the cleaner/devil holds the dish of believers up to the flames. Perhaps the dish containing believers makes a pretty colour in the bunsen whereas the non-believers aren't so interesting and just get tossed in the trash. The point I am making here is that the motivation of supernatural beings might well be completely inscrutable to us (I would expect them to be inscrutable, you don't). The burning bacteria screaming in what seems like eternal pain wouldn't understand the cleaner's motivation, or why their creator was no longer interested.