Quantum Ninja

Hello, I'm a newbie here. I've been following these forums for a few weeks and finally decided to jump into the fray.

But anyway, introductions aside, I'd like to post an interesting idea I had the other day (I'm sure it's been discussed before, but hey, what the hell...)

Myself being an atheist, I often hear theists describe personal experiences of Revelation as evidence for the existence of the deity they follow. I myself have never experienced anything that could be described as a Revelation, but I'll grant this as evidence to the theists for a moment. We'll assume for the sake of this argument that all Revelations are indeed the act of a supernatural deity communicating directly to an individual. And we'll also assume that all reports of these experiences are equally credible, i.e. the word of a Christian is no better than the word of a Hindu or a Buddhist or a member of religion X.

Based on these assumptions, several beliefs of the various religions around the world would contradict and conflict with one another. The only thing I can conclude from this line of thinking is that God is a mad psychologist that intentionally tries to confuse people. And to do this, he zaps people with his magical Revelation wand when they have a whacky idea that he wants them to cling to.

Picture this scenario:

Along comes Bob, he discovers this thing called Christianity, he says, "Hey this is kinda interesting. I think I'll check this out." He looks into, and when he's not expecting it, zap! God shoots him with his Revelation wand and this experience causes Bob to become a devout Christian. God also does this to members of various other religions, even though he is nothing like what any of those religions describe. In fact, no one really knows anything about what God is truly like because he never zaps people who have the right idea.

Why would God do such a thing? Well, maybe he's paronoid about being discovered and intentionally causes people to cling to misconceptions about himself. Either that, or he's a whacked-out psychologist that likes fucking with peoples' heads and enjoys watching what crazy things he can drive these silly little creatures to do by toying with their beliefs. I'll admit, that's probably how I'd entertain myself if I were an omnipotent, omniscient and eternal being. Sounds like a lot of fun! What do you think?

Jobar

Hello QN, and welcome to II. (Hmmm- just what units do you use when measuring a single quanta of a ninja?)

We'll assume for the sake of this argument that all Revelations are indeed the act of a supernatural deity communicating directly to an individual. And we'll also assume that all reports of these experiences are equally credible, i.e. the word of a Christian is no better than the word of a Hindu or a Buddhist or a member of religion X.

I doubt you'll find very many believers who would grant your second assumption. Most of the ones we get around here are quite certain that only their deity- in fact, only their specific cult or denomination- is the only valid one. Some may admit that all *Christian* revelations are acceptable (although only their own is error-free and certain, the One True Truth, y'know.)

Why would God do such a thing? Well, maybe he's paronoid about being discovered and intentionally causes people to cling to misconceptions about himself. Either that, or he's a whacked-out psychologist that likes fucking with peoples' heads and enjoys watching what crazy things he can drive these silly little creatures to do by toying with their beliefs. I'll admit, that's probably how I'd entertain myself if I were an omnipotent, omniscient and eternal being. Sounds like a lot of fun! What do you think?

The problem of Holy Boredom is something we have discussed occasionally, but not for a long time. Just what *could* an omnipotent, omniscient being do that would be worth the trouble, aside from just existing, unchanging and perfect? Some theologians say that perfection must be unchanging- because any change would have to be a move away from perfection. (One reason for this is that if we allow change to be perfect, just how do we say what sorts of change are imperfect? Why, this changing world of ours might even be a facet of God- and unless you're a pantheist such a thought is heresy.)

The trouble with a prankster God is that if He is omniscient, he already knows all the punchlines. None of the pratfalls he sets up are surprises. He knows exactly who gets the pie in the face, and who ducks successfully. I can't see how that would be at all entertaining, myself- but I suppose your idea is no stranger than those of plenty of religions with millions of members!