Standards for the Analysis, Evaluation and Judgment of Gods

Robert Howard Kroepel

Copyright © 2001

20 South Shore Road

New Durham, New Hampshire USA 03855-2107

How would we know a god is a god if ever one attempted to reveal itself to us?

If we have no standards for accepting claims of godism, then anything goes, and anyone or anything can be a god.

We would expect gods to be more powerful than mankind individually.

We would expect gods to be more knowledgeable than mankind collectively.

We might not expect the gods to be more benevolent than mankind individually or collectively, but, of course, it would be nice if they were.

We might not expect evil to exist as a force, but, instead recognize that natural forces may have no intent, being only natural forces, and, therefore, are without intent, and that mankind individually by greed, or excessive desires/desiring, can cause human unhappiness [as when individuals want more than they can have and refuse to accept that fact as a fact].

We would need the gods to fit at least some of the following standards:

1. We need a god to come as itself or send a messenger; we would need the god/messenger to reveal itself in a form we can perceive by our senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste; to be in a form we can understand: human-like, animal, a burning bush, etc., but, hopefully, not some kind of psychedelic swirl of lights or/and cacophony of sounds, etc., that we might not be able to perceive and recognize to be a god/messenger, or in a dream [to avoid confusions], or as a sound/voice/image in one’s head [again, to avoid confusions]; and, hopefully, to be in a form we could videotape for future reference.

2. We would need the god to be more powerful than man individually [able to do things man individually cannot]; we would need the god to be more knowledgeable than man collectively [knows more than man collectively knows].

3. We would need the god/messenger to perform miracles, defined as caused effects man individually or collectively cannot yet cause/create; gentle miracles would be preferred instead of terrifying/threatening miracles, gentle miracles including healings, cures of incurable diseases, generation or regeneration of missing limbs, raising the dead, if possible, changes of the weather on demand, movings of mountains, changes in the courses of rivers, assemblages of animals, birds, insects, fish on command, etc.; and we would need all miracles to be preceded by an announcement of the miracle--we would not need an announcement of a miracle after the fact of the miracle.

4. We would need the god/messenger to be willing to spend time with us, to answer our questions completely, to tell us of the origins of life [and if replicable by man, then man ought to replicate the origination of life to verify the assertions of the godism by using the scientific method], to tell us if or not there is a life after death, what it will be like, and how it can be achieved if there is a test individuals must pass, to tell us of how to cure currently incurable diseases, generate/regenerate missing limbs, control the weather, tell us if or not the god can save the Earth from the expected destruction of the Sun, but if the god cannot or will not prevent the destruction of the Earth by the expected explosion of the Sun, then we will need the god/messenger to tell us if another planet exists whereupon mankind can live, where it can be found, and how mankind can get to it if our present technology is not sufficient to get us there; moreover, the god/messenger must tell us what the god wants from us, how we are to worship the god, what is the gods’ ultimate moral code, the god/messenger must tell us if or not the god hears all prayers, and if or not the god answers any prayers, and if not all then which prayers are heard/answered, and why, etc.

5. If the god/messenger were intent upon giving mankind an holy book, then we would need that book to be subject to standards of inspiration/authorship/guidance by the god in all its original forms, translations, and copies, to be free of multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints [one story per set of people/things/events]--to be free of contradictions, to be free of historical inaccuracies, to be free of archaeological inaccuracies, and to be free of confusing language [to be easily read by any humans who can read, not just an elite group, such as priests, or scholars], and to contain the complete theology of the gods.

These standards are reasonable means by which humans might be able to recognize gods if they exist and if they decide to communicate with humans. These are not necessarily commandments the gods must follow, for, assuming that they are more powerful than mankind individually, the gods could do whatever they wanted. But, nevertheless, if they wanted to convince us they are gods, then we will need the gods to at least perform miracles, for otherwise, we would have no means of determining that they are gods and thus more powerful/knowledgeable than man.

I have chosen to use expressions indicating human needs of gods rather than making commandments [musts/should/oughts/etc.] that the gods must follow. Thus, instead of the form “The gods must ...” I prefer to use the form “We need the god [or god/messenger] to ...”

I would expect that the gods most likely would be understanding of the standards mankind would have to have to analyze/evaluate/judge claims of godism.

If Christians are wont to complain about standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of gods, then, assuming the New Testament  of the Christian Bible to be true, let them [the Christians] explain how it is that there ever could have been a Doubting Thomas and why the gods would have decided to prove themselves to him.

And then let the Christians [or anyone else] tell us how/by what standards/for what reasons we could tell if or not a god is a god.