Talk:Limitations of Superpowers as Applies to God

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 01:54, January 7, 2009 by The Humbled Master (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Great article, but it almost seems too real to be funny. Naughtyned

'tisn't very funny. 'twas trying to be funny but 'tisn't Nerd42 14:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

'Tisn't meant to be funny, it's meant to be satire: a piece spotlighting the folly of man. That's not necessarily funny.----OEJ 18:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

edit This article is simply not funny

A bit of background. There is an ancient argument against the existence of the Christian God:

  • P1: God is by definition omnipotent and wholly good.
  • P2: Evil exists in the real world.
  • ppA: If God is able to eliminate evil but is unwilling then He is not wholly good;
  • ppB: If God is willing to eliminate evil but is unable then He is not omnipotent;
  • C: Therefore, God does not exist.

This would of course not be a problem if the Bible had not, beginning with the Book of Isaiah, turned Jehovah from a limited, fallible deity into an universal and absolute one.

There is a very common but naive defense against the argument: that it was man who introduced evil into God's otherwise perfectly good creation. That is no defense at all, for it runs up against the problem stated in the ppA and ppB above: If God was unwilling to keep man from introducing evil, then He is not wholly good; if God was unable to oppose the introduction of evil then man was able to successfully oppose His omnipotence. Either way, God allowed evil in the universe whatever the prime agent of evil.

I know of three serious Christian attempts to circumvent the argument from the existence of evil:

  1. God's evil is not the same as man's evil, so the evil in the world is really God's good.
  2. It is blasphemous to question God's goodness, so just shut up and sit down.
  3. God had to allow evil in order to give mankind a greater good, free will.

The first defence implies that while it is evil for a man to toss a living baby into a bonfire, it is OK for God to do it. So if Moses just burned babies he would have been an evil asshole, but if he said that God told him to burn babies then that baby-burning is good, not evil. Essentially it denies that man can reliably distinguish good from evil without recourse to faith, and implies that apparent evil done in the name of faith is OK.

I've had a few Christians, pushed by this argument, tell me to my face that when it comes right down to it anything God commands is OK with them, even if it involves torture and suffering. Yippee.

The second defence is simply an assertion that religous faith, like love, must be blind and unquestioning -- and that the argument from evil is irrelevant blasphemy. Interestingly, one of the most politically influential and little-known Christian movements of the 1990s officially calls "the unbelieving questioning of God's goodness" the Supreme Blasphemy (cf theologian Rousas Rushdoony in The Institutes of Biblical Law).

The third defense -- the free will defense -- is dealt with in the article itself.

The Limitations of Superpowers article turns the famous logical proposition on its side by taking it as given that God does exist:

  • P1: God exists.
  • P2: Evil exists.
  • C: Therefore God must be at least somewhat evil and fallible.

Since at least fundamentalist Christians assert that it's obvious that God exists, and since it's impossible to miss the fact that evil also exists, the article attempts to show the folly of fundamentalist, literalist Christians by showing what their assertions about God imply: a error-prone God with a real nasty evil streak.----OEJ 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly the most coherent talkpage on teh whole interweb. I don't know whether I'm amused or disappointed.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to nominate the talk page instead of the article, but I knew it would never pass VFH. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm mulling; there's far most to His most divine limitations than just theodicy.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone checked the Church of God the Wholly Incompetent page? There's a great deal about the apparent fallibilities of God there. Check it out, OEJ! The Humbled Master 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

edit This article is simply not funny redux

It sounds more like something Richard Dawkins would say in real life instead of a funny article in uncyclopedia. I thought everything here is meant to be funny, even if something is a satire. This article has a malicious tone to it (sounds like what angsty atheists would write); and the worst part of it is how it is so unfunny. I'm not at all a theist or a Christian (I'm an atheist, actually) so don't take me as a crazy fundamentalist who hates every criticism against God. I don't mind criticism against God or religion, but uncyclopedia is not the place to do it (unless it's done in a funny way). The only thing that's remotely funny is the Roseanne section. So please, someone make this article funny (or else delete it). Take example from the Daily Show: They criticize God and religions all the time, but they're hilarious in doing it. Just because something is a satire, doesn't mean it belongs in uncyclopedia. 128.163.224.198 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The many writers at Uncyc in general, and of this page in particular (not me, I just loaf around the talkpage), thank you for you critique. Not every page will appeal to everyone. Nor should it. That you think because you don't like it it should be improved to your standards or deleted frightens and annoys me. Hubris of the first order is telling other people to be more funny. Feel free to contribute, but don't tell other what to do.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: I'm the original topic creator on a different computer here. I'm sorry if I offended you. It's not that I "don't like" the article as much as I think it doesn't belong in uncyclopedia. I'm welcome if I find such article with that tone in a more serious site. The stuff this article talks about actually are serious arguments against God (theodicy, justice issues, etc.) masked with occasional humorous words and imagery. But simply changing little things to make something funny while the original message is very critical and serious doesn't make it "uncyclopedic", I think.
And I'm sorry if I came off as being rude when saying the article should be deleted. And when I said to "please make it funny" it's a criticism for my own lack of comedic skill. But I apologize again for commanding others like that. 128.163.241.210 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No biggie. There's room for everything here, from farce to light parody to the spooky shit that keeps us up at night. Everything except bunnies. Damn furry, egg-hiding nogoodniks!--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's not all that original, funny, clever or well written. God knows how it got featured... Aaadddaaammm 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It appeared on VFH. People voted for it. Simple, really.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It is funny. What makes it funny is the combination of bizarre images and titles with serious, yet unnecessarily cynical text. Also, applying the word "superpowers" to God is inherently funny. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Inherently funny? You mean, like...

WANKEL ROTARY ENGINE!

 ;) The Humbled Master 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh...I had an RX-7 once.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

edit AEternal?

Is that a British spelling or something? I've never seen it spelled that way. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Norwegian. The "n" is silent.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


edit For and Against

  • Read at least the "for the article" part before considering deleting this:
  • Against the article:
  • It is possible to contradict the "God created evil and therefore is evil" statement. Just like cold and darkness do not exist but are actually simply the absence of heat (energy) and light, evil is merely something that happened because of our separation from God which occured when Adam and Eve sinned.
  • Also, I totally believe in some God. Just pick up some creationist booklet and you'll be forced to believe too (mine was "The Truth About Creation & Evolution, which was really easy to get through and appreciate).
  • For the article:
  • My struggles with my faith are exactly based on this article and I think another part needs to be added about fairness: Considering any man who is ultimately destined to go to hell (over one who isn't) would prefer to never have been born than to face an eternity of infinite torture in hell. What value is a doomed existence that we can't choose ourselves into or escape from?
  • Uh... and I think there was something else but I can't remember- Ill add it later if I do.--Dagibit 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Did you ever notice that the Adam/Eve story makes no sense? Why would a just God banish his kids from Eden for disobeying an order to Adam that was based on a threat he couldn't possibly comprehend (Gen 2:17)? Why would a good God flood up the place, saving only a drunken prick like Noah and his clan (if Noah was the most righteous, then He probably should've started over. Noah's the guy who damned the entire line of one of his children to slavery for seeing him naked (Gen 9:21-27). Kind of harsh, don't you think? Wouldn't an omnipotent God see that coming? Why didn't He put Thou shalt not keep slaves as a commandment? He could've. Wouldn't that be better than the covet commandment (which is essentially thought-crime)? Wouldn't a good God be against slavery/shouldn't that chunk of Deuteronomy be about how to treat people well, rather than how badly you can mistreat your slaves? If it's something that is no longer appropriate, why not? Why, then, is His official eternal word not eternal? You'd figure He'd be a better writer, what with the being everything and all. Why did a good God replace the punishment of getting squished by Him here on this Earth for displeasing him (unless you're a leader, or relative thereof) in the OT with the boiling suffering of hell in the NT? Why replace disproportionate punishment for crime with infinite punishment for finite crimes? Is that just? Why is He good, until the uncomfortable questions pop up, then He's suddenly ineffable? Either He can be judged, or He can't; you judge things by their actions, not whether they say those actions are good. Why are the beliefs and characteristics of the Biblical Him so similar to those of a desert tribe from the late Bronze/early Iron Age? And that's just off the top of my head...
  2. "The Truth About Creation & Evolution" with quotes like "In his book, evidence is presented which indicates the earth is only about 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs lived with man, that the fossil record indicates a worldwide flood 4,400 years ago, that cavemen never existed, and that today’s geological features formed quickly, not over millions of years.". Um, yeah. Plus it's got the old canon of "Just because radiocarbon dating works now, doesn't mean it worked before (because those pesky laws of the universe are so darned maleable)". Ooh, and a chapter prevocatively titled "Chapter 4: Evolution Spawned Human Persecution and Racial Prejudice", mixing up Social Darwinism with Darwinian (now NeoDarwinian) evolution (because there's no racism in the Bible...). What next, the popular but poorly conceived Genesis Flood? Why are creationists books always about Him? What about the hundreds of other creation myths and their attendant thousands of gods?

As for the rest, your path is your own. It's rocky no matter where you go. Take sensible shoes.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The creation myth I prefer is by J.R.R. Tolkien. It's in The Silmarillion, and, believe me, once you get past all the incomprehensible god names, it's a rather nice tale. Music and all... but I'll let you find out. The Humbled Master 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
...funny how things come to you out of the blue, months later but...when I said Deuteronomy, I'm pretty sure that I mean Leviticus. And Exodus. Also, Genesis. Oh, let's not forget Deuteronomy. Also, some of bits of the NT as well, although those were to slavees rather than to slavers. Lastly, slavees isn't a word. But I digress. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 13:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all right, my friend. They're mostly the same, anyways, I guess. ;) The Humbled Master 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

edit Cool!

I had not come back to the talk page for this ardikle for some time. Modus, I must say I appreciate your level-headedness and wit more than ever. For those who don't like the piece, God bless yer! I don't care for Sylvester Stallone movies, yet millions of other people do. Like an intelligent, literary version of Hollywood, Uncyc can contain many kinds of satire, parody, humor, and goofiness. God bless Uncyc!

But satire can have teeth. The phrase "biting satire" is familiar to us all. When satire bites, it is likely to make some people uncomfortable. That does not make the satire invalid. To my mind, Uncyc is large enough to contain biting satire, pugnacious parody, and rancid rutabagas. I have made this argument before: we should be large enough to include not just soft-humorous forms of parody and satire but a full spectrum of the satirical farts. Arts! I meant satirical arts.

Let me close with a parable. After Balaam's famous encounter with the angel, he continued on to Kirjathhuzoth and parked his ass in the stables there. There was a tavern nearby and he had a few beers. No, he had many beers. Now, as Bible readers may recall, Balaam's ass had just saved Balaam's ass from being chopped to mincemeat by the mighty sword of the angel of the Lord. So Balaam, well-drunk upon the vintner's product, staggered back to the stable filled with love and admiration for his faithful steed. But the dear beast was in a closed stall and Balaam -- being drunk as a lord -- could not undo the hasp. So he was kneeling down whispering words of praise through the crack in the stall door when the stablemaster found him. The stablemaster said, "What the hell do you think you're doing?" And Balaam, being drunk, replied, "I'm a juss whishpering through th' crack a' my ass." And lo! the stablemaster kicked Balaam's ass all around the stable.

So it is written. Aleh, Ameh, Kadeh. ----OEJ 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your soup is cold. Also, eaten. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

edit Funneh.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him God. ~ Epicurus

EPIIIIC.

~//Lunaquois 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If Epicurus was so smart, then why is he dead? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Because Epicurus was mortal. Also, he wasn't a total prick. The Humbled Master 01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects