A god implies that something is created(c). That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so. How would c even know if it is accepted or rejected based on goodness? And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards?
[Update spelling]
Even if I could create sentient beings, this wouldn't imply the power to declare what is good or true by fiat. 2 + 2 = 4, massive objects attract each other gravitationally, and it's morally problematic to put children in ovens for being Jewish even if a maximally powerful alien or wizard said otherwise. These things cannot be changed by any fiat, and being very powerful doesn't make it any more possible.
> this wouldn't imply the power to declare what is good or true by fiat
There are volumes upon volumes of philosophical work spent discussing this one idea. I wouldn't think less of someone simply for having a different point of view, especially if it might be supported by more than a back-of-the-envelope argument.
> That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so.
A god could define rules. So can men (in fact, men can be observed to create rules all the time). Anybody can define rules if they wish to do so. I'm not quite sure of the point here.
> And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards?
As a Stoic philosopher, obviously Marcus Aurelius' answer would be along the lines of the standards embraced by Stoicism. In addition to a heavy emphasis on virtue, the Stoics were also avid logicians, and this informed their ethics.
> A god could define rules. So can men (in fact, men can be observed to create rules all the time). Anybody can define rules if they wish to do so. I'm not quite sure of the point here.
The first parent comment implies the created can dictate on what basis the creator will "welcome you".
That can only happen if the creator has given the created that specific trait. How does the created know if it has that trait?
He might have other traits like e.g. free will, but that does not mean he can make rules on how the creator will welcome him.
He might have other traits like e.g. free will, but that does not mean he can make rules on how the creator will welcome him.
How else should we interpret the lack of unambiguous instructions from our supposed Creator, if not as permission to speculate on said Creator's intentions and desires for us?
A God who communicates only with insane people is indistinguishable from no God at all.
Of course one can speculate on the Creator's intentions and desires for us. I even ask God about these things every day, and ask Him to guide me. Dictating how the creator "will welcome you", as indicated in the first comment, is another thing, though.
And I am sure you are right, I probably am a little crazy :-)
But that is okay, as my hope in God is an anchor for my soul, firm and secure . . . (Hebrews 6.19)
Exactly. In this setup, the created can't know. Therefore it is pointless to worry about it.
Let's say this god entity as understood by any major religion, past or present, exists. Or would that be entities?
1. It doesn't communicate its rules to its created (C) in a way that would be undeniably from It. Books can be written by anyone. Give me letters of starfire in the sky, or floating letters of stone a mile tall, or something similarly miraculous that would be an undeniable mark of its divine provenance.
2. It gives C built-in rules (a moral sense), but enforces an external set of rules that often conflict with the internal rules. Why not just implant the rules in C in the first place?
3. There are rumors among C that they are being judged, and if they don't behave according to aforementioned poorly-communicated rules, they will be "rejected". Why? As the creator it's responsible for any defects in the created.
All together these seem like the actions of a cruel psychopath who gets off on its creations failing. But these are my internal rules, you say. Sure, but it planted them in me. What else am I supposed to use? The Book (any "Book") makes no sense by these rules. And I cannot respect a creator so childish and cruel, because my internal rules forbid me to and because by my rules, I am far superior to it - I don't torture those with less power than me.
I could pretend to respect it, but if it's omniscient as is always claimed, I couldn't fool it. So the only way to live is by my rules, and if at the end it turns out that there is a creator and that it is, indeed, as described in The Book and that I am, indeed, going to Hell, I can only hope for a chance to spit in its face when I meet it.
Interestingly, the Greek and Roman gods were not the creators of the universe, but descendants of the creator. Certainly in the myths, proper respect for the gods was somewhat more important than goodness. So, for example, Medea could be forgiven for murdering her brother, but failing to invite Strife to a wedding led to the Trojan war.
(Just finished reading D'Aulaires' Greek mythology with my daughter)
