Another essay from my collection. Of note, this one was inspired by another poster on one of the sites I used to visit, however I don’t recall the poster’s name or what site this originally came up on. I’d like to give that poster credit for the original concept, so if the subject here rings a bell and you know who posted the idea previously, let me know. The essay is a more fleshed out and greatly elaborated take on the concept. _________________________________<\/p>\n
I was brought up as an Episcopalian and went to church nearly every Sunday between the ages of about five through about fifteen. I recall many sermon topics and biblical teachings, but the topic that seemed to come up more frequently than others is the concept of a personal God. Certain priests and laypeople really gravitated to the idea that God was available on a personal level and claimed outright (and reiterated many times) that God wanted<\/em> to have a personal relationship with everyone. This, of course, was coupled with the idea that God was also an all loving God. So, not only did this God want to hang out as buds, but in theory wanted the best for those folk it hung out with. Kind of like an invisible friend, but with the added bonus of being\u2026well\u2026Almighty. I confess, I really loved the idea of having God as a personal friend who was\u2026well, in theory\u2026really much cooler than any of my human friends. As you might imagine, I started to become a little annoyed and rather disillusioned when said supposed cool friend never actually did anything\u2026well\u2026cool. In fact, after a number of years it became quite clear (and rather disappointing) that this God didn\u2019t do anything personal, at least not with me.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Let me be clear about something: my beef with the lack of personal interaction has nothing to do with my \u201crequiring\u201d this God to \u201cprove\u201d its personal friendship (which is a criticism some have leveled against my point in the past.) This is not a case of, \u201cif you really were my personal friend, you\u2019d give me a pet Godzilla for my birthday.\u201d Rather, this is the recognition that over a good ten years, this supposed personal God never did anything<\/em> personal or even anything that most people take for granted as normal acts of personal kindness. Over the years, I\u2019ve come up with a thought experiment to illustrate the obvious paradox. The concept is pretty simple to grasp: if the claim that God is (or can be) a personal, loving friend, why are there empty toilet paper rolls?<\/p>\n Think about that for a minute or two. I mean, really think about it. Then consider this thought experiment.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s say you are at home and you feel the urge to go to the bathroom. You waltz on in and sit down to do your business. You look over and discover (oh no!) the toilet paper roll is empty! Damn!<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s say you\u2019re not home alone. Maybe your spouse is home, or your brother or sister, or maybe one of your kids or one of your parents, or maybe a friend is visiting. It doesn\u2019t matter who else is in the house really. The critical element is that someone who, at least on some level, cares about you and with whom you have a personal relationship<\/em> is in the house.<\/p>\n So you call out to this person, \u201choney? The toilet paper roll is empty. Can you bring me a new roll?\u201d Now, what are the odds this person, who supposedly loves you and with whom you have a definite personal relationship, is going to bring you a new roll of toilet paper? I submit that if you answered anything other than 1 (note: odds are a ratio of the number of desired or likely outcomes against the number of undesirable or unlikely outcomes. If there is no likelihood of any undesirable outcomes, then the ratio is 1. 1 is equivalent to 100%), you might want to start reevaluating your relationships.<\/p>\n The point is that the vast majority of people, if they are honest, all admit that pretty much any personal relationship loved one would bring them a roll of toilet paper. Even the antagonistic relationship siblings I\u2019ve asked have universally all agreed that they\u2019d eventually relent (after a certain amount of some kind of grief and teasing) and bring their sibling a roll.<\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s take the same basic scenario, but this time none of your immediate family or a visiting personal human friend are at home. What are the odds of a roll of toilet paper appearing if you ask God to get you one?<\/p>\n I\u2019m not being flippant here (well\u2026not entirely). The fact is, this just doesn\u2019t seem to happen. And the thing is, the \u201cpersonal\u201d in personal God has to mean \u201cinteractive\u201d with a particular person. That\u2019s the definition of personal. So, if this God can\u2019t or won\u2019t do some interactive something as simple as bringing someone a roll of toilet paper, how can it be considered \u201cpersonal\u201d in any sense of the term?<\/p>\n Of note, one of the most common responses I get when I offer this apparent paradox to folks \u2013 usually theistic folk \u2013 to consider is that, well\u2026providing someone a roll of toilet paper would be incredibly trivial for a God. My immediate rebuttal is always, \u201cbut what isn\u2019t trivial to a God?\u201d I\u2019ve never gotten an answer. Seriously. The moment I\u2019ve noted that if we\u2019re talking about an entity that supposedly is the creator of the universe and ask what act could be defined as \u201cnot trivial\u201d, the people arguing for actions too trivial for such a God tend to realize there\u2019s no honest argument. Don\u2019t get me wrong, it\u2019s not that some folk haven\u2019t tried to double down with the old, \u201cGod decides what is His prerogative\u201d usually coupled with some variation of \u201cand the Lord works in mysterious ways.\u201d I just roll my eyes. Such responses strike me as more supporting of my point that this supposed God isn\u2019t very personal.<\/p>\n Keep in mind too, if you really think about it, if an act like bringing someone toilet paper is too trivial for a God to bother with, in what sense would said God ever interact with anyone? I\u2019ll be getting into more detail on the issues of omni-gods (that is, a God with omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so forth), but the point is that if there is some way to actually measure certain actions as trivial for some God, why wouldn\u2019t said God just do them? I mean, what\u2019s the loss? Unless said omnigod has limitations or some form of action parameters, then it would seem that trivial actions would actually be something a God would do with abandon since they would definitely demonstrate the personal element to its faithful and would have no actual impact on the God\u2019s ability to do other rather more important things simultaneously (whatever those might be.)<\/p>\n Kind of makes me wonder why coffee isn\u2019t just ready for drinking every morning\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Another essay from my collection. Of note, this one was inspired by another poster on one of the sites I used to visit, however I don’t recall the poster’s name or what site this originally came up on. I’d like … Continue reading