Image source iStockphoto/ Thinkstock found on http://www.rizzarr.com/2013/02/14/being-uncomfortable-for-god/
From our previous look at big questions the set of answers we’ll consider here are: God exists and created everything from nothing; we know this because God told us so; and we ought to live by the rules God gave us.
Well the difficulties are considerable if we seek agreement on what we mean by God and what the rules are. Is God like the bearded creator in the clouds that Michelangelo painted?
Is God made of atoms? Is God like humans and subject to emotions such as love, anger, jealousy? Is God really Nature?
What else could God (or the gods) be like?
If we ever get agreement on that, can we agree on the rules?
Are the rules likely to be coincident with what we are normally inclined to do? If so, what need have we of rules? If not, why would we be so created that we find it difficult to obey the rules? Isn’t it like someone making a clock with rubber bands and tinfoil and, knowing it won’t keep very good time, getting mad at it when you’re late for a meeting.
Of course there’s no shortage of rules:
Probably the biggest problem for this set of answers is the problem of evil (the subject of the specialized area, theodicy). By evil is meant, at the minimum, innocent suffering. Simply put, the problem is as follows:
either
God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all seeing but chooses not to prevent evil: God is therefore not loving;
or
God is not all-powerful, all-knowing and all seeing and so is helpless to prevent evil: God therefor has limits.
Since neither option seems to fit with the usual understanding of God, the whole set of answers becomes less credible. The problem can be avoided by saying the whole matter of God is a mystery and we can only accept in faith what has been revealed by God. Okay. Let’s leave it there for now and finish this part of the series by considering Socrates and the Pig.
