Originally posted by Paul
It would be like one man created a bicycle, another a soapbox cart and god created a formula one racer. Or if they bought you a meal one man would buy you a hotdog, another a hamburger and god a six course meal by a 3 star michelan chef. |
The assumption here is that there is a standard benchmark that can be applied to show which candidate is superior.
However, this assumption does not hold true at all in real life.
A formula one racer will win a bicycle or a soapbox cart if they are competing around a racetrack.
But what if they are racing across the outback, or up the mountain, or down the hill?
The six course meal by a 3-star Michelin chef is nice, but it is not a viable choice for mountain climbers.
So the fallacy here lies in the assumption that religion can be benchmarked on a common standard when in real life, different people have different expectations and requirements with respect to religion.
Of course, one can argue that a perfect god should be able to make a perfect religion that meets each and every individual's needs, regardless of how different these needs are.
The presumption then is that a god should be catering to the expectations of humans, instead of behaving like god and tell humans what he expects from them, which IMO, isn't really a god but a genie.
Even as a mere mortal, I am free to decide what I want, to be able to tell my friends they better respect my rules when they are under my roof, instead of people telling what I should be doing before they'll deign visit me.
I don't think a god who cannot do even that is really god.