If it weren't for Jesus being in the pop-culture then America would have gone the way of Western Europe a long time ago.
Quote:
My friend said "I don't believe in a God who would send me to Hell" but he didn't say "I believe in a God who would let his only Son die to save me from going to Hell". The idea of a dark and angry God isn't wrong, but it's an unfair characterization.
Because the second statement is just silly.
God creates me, everything I am.
God creates evil, which he put in me (because nothing is out of his control).
To save me from the hell he created for me (and damned me to before my existence by creating me to do the things that are hell-worthy) he sacrificed someone else (who was him... or something).
It's silly to simultaneously claim that God is all-powerful and omniscient but then simultaneously claim there's an anti-God running around creating a mess God is using Jesus to clean up. Is there any "fair" characterization of such a complex and contradictory God?
If God created everything then God created everything. So the second statement isn't said because it is silly.
Is there any "fair" characterization of such a complex and contradictory God?
If God created everything then God created everything. So the second statement isn't said because it is silly.
Strictly speaking, there should be NO characterization of God whatsoever. The idea of the creation criticizing the Creator is blasphemy, yet humans do it all the time....free will and all.
I too have a problem in decrying that people are born inherently evil - I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts. I believe that everyone here has hatreds, grudges, intolerances, schemes and designs which belie their ability to claim themselves "pure"....and that none of us can go through our lives without exhibiting those behaviors publicly or privately.
I don't think that second statement I made is silly at all.....I think it's wonderful.
But then, we already know how I voted in this poll!
Strictly speaking, there should be NO characterization of God whatsoever. The idea of the creation criticizing the Creator is blasphemy, yet humans do it all the time....free will and all.
I too have a problem in decrying that people are born inherently evil - I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts. I believe that everyone here has hatreds, grudges, intolerances, schemes and designs which belie their ability to claim themselves "pure"....and that none of us can go through our lives without exhibiting those behaviors publicly or privately.
I don't think that second statement I made is silly at all.....I think it's wonderful.
But then, we already know how I voted in this poll!
If god created everything it would have created the capacities for such evil you speak of. It clearly had to be an intentional creation because of it was unintended it means god is fallible and not omnipotent.
If you are going to retort with there cannot be good without evil and that is sound logic therefore god had to make evil, that, again, is bunk. If god is so omnipotent it could have created only good without evil AND it would seem perfectly logical to its creations.
You cannot on one hand claim an omnipotent benevolent god yet on the other describe a bumbling, meanspirited fool.
Quote:
I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts.
And if your god is omnipotent it clearly and intentionally created said opportunity.
It's interesting how the demographics of the people who hang out here on AppleInsider are so skewed from the norm of the general population practically anywhere. At two thirds agnostic/atheist, one of the few places like that out there in the real world is the Czech Republic, which is exceptionally non-religious even by European standards.
I get the impression that the majority of AI-ers (or at least a plurality) are American, making these poll results more striking. In the US as a whole those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic are in a distinct (but growing) minority. By one stat I read, only about 8 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. The current US population is around 290 million, although to be fair, the 8 million should probably be compared to the smaller adult population of the US, as I imagine the 8 million figure is limited to adults. No matter how you slice it, however, well under 10% atheist or agnostic.
I wonder what factors so skew the demographics here. Education? Affinity for technology? Higher male-to-female membership?
And while I'm asking, what is it that draws women in higher numbers to new-agey sorts of stuff? Astrology, tarot, crystals, channelers, séances, healing touch, etc., etc. -- it's sadly difficult to find sensible women.
It's amazing that while there were so many lessons taught by Jesus about tolerance, that besides fundamentalist Muslims, the most intolerant of all are almost exclusively Fundie Christians.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Both the fundamentalest Muslims and fundamentalist Christians contribute to an extremely tiny minority of the overall practicing communities in each faith. I would say that, as far as it means to be an unsavory character, there are at least as many of them out there with no religious beliefs or affiliations at all.
I get the impression that the majority of AI-ers (or at least a plurality) are American, making these poll results more striking. In the US as a whole those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic are in a distinct (but growing) minority. By one stat I read, only about 8 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. The current US population is around 290 million, although to be fair, the 8 million should probably be compared to the smaller adult population of the US, as I imagine the 8 million figure is limited to adults. No matter how you slice it, however, well under 10% atheist or agnostic.
I'd say the educational level in AI, due to several factors (Internet, computer enthusiasts) is to some degree proportional to the increase in freethinkers (atheist/agnostic).
Quote:
I wonder what factors so skew the demographics here. Education? Affinity for technology? Higher male-to-female membership?
Yeah, probably all of those.
Quote:
And while I'm asking, what is it that draws women in higher numbers to new-agey sorts of stuff? Astrology, tarot, crystals, channelers, séances, healing touch, etc., etc. -- it's sadly difficult to find sensible women.
Man, this is the most evenly spread poll I think I've ever seen on this site. Exactly 1/3 in each category, with a decent number of total responses to boot.
I fall in the latter category, but was looking for the
"Believe in a higher power, but ascribe to virtually none of the simplistic notions of God [that people tend to believe]" option.
None of the major religions are, in my estimation, other than Buddhism maybe, and even that has its fairy tale aspects.
They are not more rational, but definitely more influencial (with good results and horrific ones obviously). People don't start wars or hate-fests in the name of Astrology generally. Nor do they go out and build homeless shelters or soup kitchens in the name of Astrology.
However, over time, I've decided that agnosticism is a completely inconsequential extension of atheism, with little rational basis. After all, would you bother to label yourself with regards to your belief in the invisible pink monkey-giraffe, if it was possible that both the invisible pink monkey-giraffe existed and did not exist? Of course not, it is ludicrous to give credence to the possibility of an invisible pink monkey-giraffe.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
I fall in the latter category, but was looking for the
"Believe in a higher power, but ascribe to virtually none of the simplistic notions of God people ascribe to" option.
My response to what Ganondorf had to say above stems a bit from the kind of idea expressed by Moogs here.
I consider myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist, because the question of the existence of God is deeply entwined with the question of the meaning of God -- agnosticism is for me an acknowledgement of the sense of wonder and possibility that arises from the question within the question.
Consider the question "Does an invisible pink monkey-giraffe exist?". One might simply answer "no" immediately, on the basis that something cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time. If one is generous, one could allow that the hypothetical creature is sometimes visible, and at those times is pink. There's still a bit of vagueness is what exactly a "monkey-giraffe" might be, but compared to the variety of meanings ascribed to the notion of God, the general category of some invisible creature combining characteristics of monkeys and giraffes, pink in color when visible, is fairly specific. The domain of the proposition can be established narrowly, and its truth value, determined or not, can be limited to the scope of that narrow domain.
"Is there a God?", however -- that's a more interesting question. Is there a what? I take the question as meaning "Is there... if is even is the right word... something worthy of the grandeur, poetry, and scope associated with the many notions of God?".
The deities of human religions seem to me pallid concepts, limited answers to limited questions. To call God a Creator mires God in our sense of time because creation implies a flow of time where something comes into existence after a time when it did not exist. To call God Almighty saddles the notion of God with human concerns for dominion and power. To call God loving, just, vengeful, jealous, to think Him concerned with praise or lack thereof, projects too much fragile humanity on a notion that should be much larger and much stranger than that.
I call myself an agnostic as a way of acknowledging that the universe is almost certainly a grander, more mysterious, and less apparent thing than we know, and more so, than we might even be capable of suspecting. It seems to me that it?s worth remaining open to the possibility of something befitting the notion of God, in a way that the words "is" and ?exist? are only hints towards a more proper, but less imaginable, verb outside of time.
Seriously, I know of the feeling which Shetline speaks of. When I think of God and what that being might entail, and what it implies about our world or our place in that world, it's a rather nebulous concept to get your mind around.
What if God "is", but not in the same sense that I "is" (to borrow an urban phraseology)? I think one of the more troublesome things to ponder is the notion of God (or that higher power) having a consiousness analogous to the ones we have. Maybe the God that is really out there is aware of all things not like an overseer who looks down on the activities of unsuspecting creatures like ourselves, but as a sort of extension of our physical beings.
Maybe when I was a kid and chucked a dirt-clod at poor Chucky down the street, God didn't "see" me throw it, he felt the concussion of the dirt clod hitting poor Chuky's mellon. Maybe he also felt my anger when I discovered that Chucky left my baseball mit sitting out in the rain the night before, leaving me effectively "mitless" for that night's big game.
This is also fictitious of course (the reality is that I pushed Chucky into traffic after dropping line drive after line drive, hit at me -- the lead-gloved third baseman).
But you see my point. We tend to relate the notion of God far too much to our own reality and way of experiencing things, and that to me, seems almost ridiculous. Totally contradictory to what must be the case of a being that can create wondrous things like the Big Bang or Evolution or any number of other amazing items in our "visible" universe.
I think it's a little short-sighted for some of you to say, "If God is omnipotent, then he had to make evil and he wouldn't do that so he doesn't exist." My argument is that if God exists (which I think God does), God can do whatever He darn well pleases to do.
If God wanted to make the universe in such a way that there are other things besides good (mainly evil) that could creep into the picture, then He would do that.
If God wanted to MAKE us choose Him or not be allowed to be with Him for the rest of eternity, then it's His prerogotive.
God is omnipotent. Most everyone who believes in God believes that. That means two things: One, that we will NEVER be able to understand the complexity of God; and two, that God can do whatever He wants -- including limiting HIMSELF if He so chooses.
Which gets me to my point: I believe that God set up the universe so that humans would keep Him company. On top of that, I believe that he wanted to make it interesting for Himself, and therefore set it up so that humans would not necessarily want to like Him or acknowledge him. Hence evil was *allowed* (not created) to infiltrate the universe.
So God gave us free will, and set up the universe so that these billions upon billions of people would all have a choice to either choose that which created them OR do their own thing -- including absolute rejection of God.
But remember, God is omnipotent and doesn't play fair sometimes. So initially, God set up rules: You have the choice to like me, but if you don't then you don't get to be with me. This didn't work. The rules didn't fly well with humanity. God realized this. So here come the floods to wipe out most everybody in existence.
God changed his tune and sent Jesus Christ along. God had never lived as a human, so He thought He'd give it a try. This time, the message was this: Evil has infiltrated existence. Evil sucks. God is good, and loves you very much. Why be evil when God is love. This worked a lot better, and eventually evolved into Christianity as it is today.
So the common denominator through all this is two-fold:[list=1][*]God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants. He thought it'd be interesting to make a humanity that must choose Him, but to cheat in the game, God set up some incentives -- love being the primary.[*]God, in His omnipotence, has the choice to limit His Godness to suit His desires. Those limitations can even go as far as to abolish Himself from doing something, i.e. giving us the free will to choose how we live our lives and what we choose as a deity, if any. Ever heard the question, "Can God build a rock so big that even He can't lift it?" Free will is it, folks.[/list=1]
Now honestly, does that sound uber-conservative right-wing, or does it sound fairly well thought-out and intellectual. I've got more if someone wants to hear it.
And in defense of Christians everywhere, we don't like to claim the Ultra-Conservatives as our own. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the like rub many of us the wrong way; and it's not fair to lump ALL Christians into a group with them.
That's like saying all women are high-maintenance, all Grateful Dead fans smoke pot, and all video games are violent. In each of these cases, it's the "bad seeds" that everyone hears about and then stereotypes are formed.
No, it just sounds like someone rationalizing his irrational beliefs. If you have to come up with this big song and dance to believe in god, good for you.
Now honestly, does that sound uber-conservative right-wing, or does it sound fairly well thought-out and intellectual. I've got more if someone wants to hear it.
Echoing BR a bit, I'd say it sounds like a lot of intellectual effort spent seeking internal consistency among a set of unsupported premises. It's like cutting out your own set of puzzle pieces and showing how cleverly you can make them fit together, rather than figuring out how to put together pieces of an existing puzzle.
So the intellectual and the spiritual are not allowed to associate? That's awfully close-minded, don't you think?
Of course, I don't even know why I try to explain anything to BR. I always forget that the universe revolves around his/her opinions and everyone else can take their opinions and f*ck off.
Oh, wait. That's being intolerant. Dang! I can't win with these people! When does my opinion change over to intolerance again? When it disagrees with YOUR opinion?
My only problem with your overall theory CosmoNut, is that you are likening God to "just another human being, only with super powers".
Why do you presume God has an innate need for "company", for example? I've often thought of that myself in years gone by but when I put myself to task I can't really conceive of a logical reason why God would need "company", and at the same time, make the modality of company so tentative and indirect. Can I keep God company simply by wondering about him? The very notion of company implies a sort of physical (as in physics at least, no necessarily a body) presence I think.
If he really were of such nature that he could feel "lonely" (and solve the problem at the same time), why make himself (herself, itself, however you want to view that) so remote? Why not take a physical form of his own, or make some direct means of contact (even if it were in our sleep for instance)? Personally, I see too many inconsistencies with that line of thinking.
Secondly, why do you presume God's need for this elaborate "game"? Is he bored? Are you sure he has enough human qualities to even consider something like a game? Games are invented to be won or lost. Does God care about such things? Why would he? I imagine that if I created even one solar system (let alone an entire universe), I wouldn't be too concerned with the notion of "games".
In fact, I'm not sure what I *would* be concerned about, since everything that is -- apparently -- is something of my own design. UNLESS, I design it such that it takes on a momentum and energy of its own... and creates something that I had no prior vision of myself. Then watching that thing come into being would perhaps captivate a Godly mind in some way we cannot fathom. This sort of assumes that God has the power to make anything happen, but not necessarily to do more ethereal things like see into the future.
Your notion of self-determination / free-will as the "rock God made but can't lift" is very much analgous to what I was saying above. Creating something in such a way as to not be able to predict its outcome, and have that unpredictability be the very reason for its creation. Maybe we are not God's "company", but instead just a tiny little part of an immense tapestry that is weaving itself right before him (or within him or something)... maybe whether I had sex with my girlfriend before we got married, is no more or less an interest to him then two stars colliding and creating a color he himself has never experienced before.
As for evil and love and curiosity and all such intangible conceptss, I suppose those things could all be by-products of his "engine of creation" that was set into motion long ago. He didn't "place them in us" anymore than he "placed" heroine into the bloodstream of an unborn child (child of an addict). Those ideas have simply taken form over the eons of human development perhaps.
Here's a novel one: what if there is very definitely a God, who created all that we see around us and all that will ever be, but there is no heaven and no hell. Like everything else in the universe, we are simply another type of matter, collected and integrated in a particular fashion, that will one day collapse and return back to our pure state. Just like a star or a drop in the ocean or whatever. Sooner or later, every physical thing is returned to either pure energy or fundamental particles of matter. Maybe, we're just here for the ride.
Roman Catholic But its all BS. I mean, I believe there is a "higher power" but to say that some old F**K that people call pope is closer or more important to "God" is ludacrist i mean WTF who made all these rules. I recently saw a comedian on comedy central say "well in all their stories there drinking alot of wine... don't you think that they(the writers of the bible) have had anything to drink?" i agree!
P.S. i almost got through a whole post without doing a "..." between sentences or thoughts haah
If God wanted to make the universe in such a way that there are other things besides good (mainly evil) that could creep into the picture, then He would do that.
There is no creeping involved. God is omnipotent and the creator, God made evil. Not just created a situation in which it might arise, God knew. God knows all.
Quote:
If God wanted to MAKE us choose Him or not be allowed to be with Him for the rest of eternity, then it's His prerogotive.
What choice does man have when he is 100% God's creation?
Every thought, feeling and action was created by God.
Quote:
God is omnipotent. Most everyone who believes in God believes that. That means two things: One, that we will NEVER be able to understand the complexity of God; and two, that God can do whatever He wants -- including limiting HIMSELF if He so chooses.
If God is limited then God is not omnipotent.
Quote:
Which gets me to my point: I believe that God set up the universe so that humans would keep Him company. On top of that, I believe that he wanted to make it interesting for Himself, and therefore set it up so that humans would not necessarily want to like Him or acknowledge him. Hence evil was *allowed* (not created) to infiltrate the universe.
Who/what/how created evil?
You fall apart here because it is completely illogical.
Also, how can God not know the results of the first plan (pre-flood)?
I don't think that any of us are going to convince the others about our religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. I'd just like to tell people who've never read the Bible or the Torah to do so without the filter of someone else's interpretations.
Comments
If it weren't for Jesus being in the pop-culture then America would have gone the way of Western Europe a long time ago.
My friend said "I don't believe in a God who would send me to Hell" but he didn't say "I believe in a God who would let his only Son die to save me from going to Hell". The idea of a dark and angry God isn't wrong, but it's an unfair characterization.
Because the second statement is just silly.
God creates me, everything I am.
God creates evil, which he put in me (because nothing is out of his control).
To save me from the hell he created for me (and damned me to before my existence by creating me to do the things that are hell-worthy) he sacrificed someone else (who was him... or something).
It's silly to simultaneously claim that God is all-powerful and omniscient but then simultaneously claim there's an anti-God running around creating a mess God is using Jesus to clean up. Is there any "fair" characterization of such a complex and contradictory God?
If God created everything then God created everything. So the second statement isn't said because it is silly.
Originally posted by groverat
Is there any "fair" characterization of such a complex and contradictory God?
If God created everything then God created everything. So the second statement isn't said because it is silly.
Strictly speaking, there should be NO characterization of God whatsoever. The idea of the creation criticizing the Creator is blasphemy, yet humans do it all the time....free will and all.
I too have a problem in decrying that people are born inherently evil - I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts. I believe that everyone here has hatreds, grudges, intolerances, schemes and designs which belie their ability to claim themselves "pure"....and that none of us can go through our lives without exhibiting those behaviors publicly or privately.
I don't think that second statement I made is silly at all.....I think it's wonderful.
But then, we already know how I voted in this poll!
Originally posted by drewprops
Strictly speaking, there should be NO characterization of God whatsoever. The idea of the creation criticizing the Creator is blasphemy, yet humans do it all the time....free will and all.
I too have a problem in decrying that people are born inherently evil - I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts. I believe that everyone here has hatreds, grudges, intolerances, schemes and designs which belie their ability to claim themselves "pure"....and that none of us can go through our lives without exhibiting those behaviors publicly or privately.
I don't think that second statement I made is silly at all.....I think it's wonderful.
But then, we already know how I voted in this poll!
If god created everything it would have created the capacities for such evil you speak of. It clearly had to be an intentional creation because of it was unintended it means god is fallible and not omnipotent.
If you are going to retort with there cannot be good without evil and that is sound logic therefore god had to make evil, that, again, is bunk. If god is so omnipotent it could have created only good without evil AND it would seem perfectly logical to its creations.
You cannot on one hand claim an omnipotent benevolent god yet on the other describe a bumbling, meanspirited fool.
I believe it more accurate to say that the opportunity for evil resides in every person and that individuals can become possessed with evilness, mean spirits and hardened hearts.
And if your god is omnipotent it clearly and intentionally created said opportunity.
I get the impression that the majority of AI-ers (or at least a plurality) are American, making these poll results more striking. In the US as a whole those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic are in a distinct (but growing) minority. By one stat I read, only about 8 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. The current US population is around 290 million, although to be fair, the 8 million should probably be compared to the smaller adult population of the US, as I imagine the 8 million figure is limited to adults. No matter how you slice it, however, well under 10% atheist or agnostic.
I wonder what factors so skew the demographics here. Education? Affinity for technology? Higher male-to-female membership?
And while I'm asking, what is it that draws women in higher numbers to new-agey sorts of stuff? Astrology, tarot, crystals, channelers, séances, healing touch, etc., etc. -- it's sadly difficult to find sensible women.
Originally posted by tonton
It's amazing that while there were so many lessons taught by Jesus about tolerance, that besides fundamentalist Muslims, the most intolerant of all are almost exclusively Fundie Christians.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Both the fundamentalest Muslims and fundamentalist Christians contribute to an extremely tiny minority of the overall practicing communities in each faith. I would say that, as far as it means to be an unsavory character, there are at least as many of them out there with no religious beliefs or affiliations at all.
Originally posted by shetline
I get the impression that the majority of AI-ers (or at least a plurality) are American, making these poll results more striking. In the US as a whole those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic are in a distinct (but growing) minority. By one stat I read, only about 8 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. The current US population is around 290 million, although to be fair, the 8 million should probably be compared to the smaller adult population of the US, as I imagine the 8 million figure is limited to adults. No matter how you slice it, however, well under 10% atheist or agnostic.
I'd say the educational level in AI, due to several factors (Internet, computer enthusiasts) is to some degree proportional to the increase in freethinkers (atheist/agnostic).
I wonder what factors so skew the demographics here. Education? Affinity for technology? Higher male-to-female membership?
Yeah, probably all of those.
And while I'm asking, what is it that draws women in higher numbers to new-agey sorts of stuff? Astrology, tarot, crystals, channelers, séances, healing touch, etc., etc. -- it's sadly difficult to find sensible women.
Because women are generally irrational.
Flame on.
I fall in the latter category, but was looking for the
"Believe in a higher power, but ascribe to virtually none of the simplistic notions of God [that people tend to believe]" option.
1. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (97%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (88%)
5. Roman Catholic (88%)
6. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (86%)
7. Liberal Quakers (57%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (56%)
9. Islam (55%)
10. Bahá'Ã* Faith (54%)
11. Unitarian Universalism (50%)
12. Hinduism (43%)
13. Sikhism (41%)
14. Reform Judaism (40%)
15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (33%)
17. Jainism (32%)
18. Non-theist (26%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (25%)
20. Mahayana Buddhism (25%)
21. Theravada Buddhism (25%)
22. Neo-Pagan (23%)
23. New Age (21%)
24. Scientology (21%)
25. Taoism (21%)
26. Secular Humanism (19%)
27. New Thought (18%)
Originally posted by groverat
Is Christianity more rational than astrology?
None of the major religions are, in my estimation, other than Buddhism maybe, and even that has its fairy tale aspects.
They are not more rational, but definitely more influencial (with good results and horrific ones obviously). People don't start wars or hate-fests in the name of Astrology generally. Nor do they go out and build homeless shelters or soup kitchens in the name of Astrology.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
However, over time, I've decided that agnosticism is a completely inconsequential extension of atheism, with little rational basis. After all, would you bother to label yourself with regards to your belief in the invisible pink monkey-giraffe, if it was possible that both the invisible pink monkey-giraffe existed and did not exist? Of course not, it is ludicrous to give credence to the possibility of an invisible pink monkey-giraffe.
Originally posted by Moogs
I fall in the latter category, but was looking for the
"Believe in a higher power, but ascribe to virtually none of the simplistic notions of God people ascribe to" option.
My response to what Ganondorf had to say above stems a bit from the kind of idea expressed by Moogs here.
I consider myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist, because the question of the existence of God is deeply entwined with the question of the meaning of God -- agnosticism is for me an acknowledgement of the sense of wonder and possibility that arises from the question within the question.
Consider the question "Does an invisible pink monkey-giraffe exist?". One might simply answer "no" immediately, on the basis that something cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time. If one is generous, one could allow that the hypothetical creature is sometimes visible, and at those times is pink. There's still a bit of vagueness is what exactly a "monkey-giraffe" might be, but compared to the variety of meanings ascribed to the notion of God, the general category of some invisible creature combining characteristics of monkeys and giraffes, pink in color when visible, is fairly specific. The domain of the proposition can be established narrowly, and its truth value, determined or not, can be limited to the scope of that narrow domain.
"Is there a God?", however -- that's a more interesting question. Is there a what? I take the question as meaning "Is there... if is even is the right word... something worthy of the grandeur, poetry, and scope associated with the many notions of God?".
The deities of human religions seem to me pallid concepts, limited answers to limited questions. To call God a Creator mires God in our sense of time because creation implies a flow of time where something comes into existence after a time when it did not exist. To call God Almighty saddles the notion of God with human concerns for dominion and power. To call God loving, just, vengeful, jealous, to think Him concerned with praise or lack thereof, projects too much fragile humanity on a notion that should be much larger and much stranger than that.
I call myself an agnostic as a way of acknowledging that the universe is almost certainly a grander, more mysterious, and less apparent thing than we know, and more so, than we might even be capable of suspecting. It seems to me that it?s worth remaining open to the possibility of something befitting the notion of God, in a way that the words "is" and ?exist? are only hints towards a more proper, but less imaginable, verb outside of time.
Seriously, I know of the feeling which Shetline speaks of. When I think of God and what that being might entail, and what it implies about our world or our place in that world, it's a rather nebulous concept to get your mind around.
What if God "is", but not in the same sense that I "is" (to borrow an urban phraseology)? I think one of the more troublesome things to ponder is the notion of God (or that higher power) having a consiousness analogous to the ones we have. Maybe the God that is really out there is aware of all things not like an overseer who looks down on the activities of unsuspecting creatures like ourselves, but as a sort of extension of our physical beings.
Maybe when I was a kid and chucked a dirt-clod at poor Chucky down the street, God didn't "see" me throw it, he felt the concussion of the dirt clod hitting poor Chuky's mellon. Maybe he also felt my anger when I discovered that Chucky left my baseball mit sitting out in the rain the night before, leaving me effectively "mitless" for that night's big game.
This is also fictitious of course (the reality is that I pushed Chucky into traffic after dropping line drive after line drive, hit at me -- the lead-gloved third baseman).
But you see my point. We tend to relate the notion of God far too much to our own reality and way of experiencing things, and that to me, seems almost ridiculous. Totally contradictory to what must be the case of a being that can create wondrous things like the Big Bang or Evolution or any number of other amazing items in our "visible" universe.
If God wanted to make the universe in such a way that there are other things besides good (mainly evil) that could creep into the picture, then He would do that.
If God wanted to MAKE us choose Him or not be allowed to be with Him for the rest of eternity, then it's His prerogotive.
God is omnipotent. Most everyone who believes in God believes that. That means two things: One, that we will NEVER be able to understand the complexity of God; and two, that God can do whatever He wants -- including limiting HIMSELF if He so chooses.
Which gets me to my point: I believe that God set up the universe so that humans would keep Him company. On top of that, I believe that he wanted to make it interesting for Himself, and therefore set it up so that humans would not necessarily want to like Him or acknowledge him. Hence evil was *allowed* (not created) to infiltrate the universe.
So God gave us free will, and set up the universe so that these billions upon billions of people would all have a choice to either choose that which created them OR do their own thing -- including absolute rejection of God.
But remember, God is omnipotent and doesn't play fair sometimes. So initially, God set up rules: You have the choice to like me, but if you don't then you don't get to be with me. This didn't work. The rules didn't fly well with humanity. God realized this. So here come the floods to wipe out most everybody in existence.
God changed his tune and sent Jesus Christ along. God had never lived as a human, so He thought He'd give it a try. This time, the message was this: Evil has infiltrated existence. Evil sucks. God is good, and loves you very much. Why be evil when God is love. This worked a lot better, and eventually evolved into Christianity as it is today.
So the common denominator through all this is two-fold:[list=1][*]God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants. He thought it'd be interesting to make a humanity that must choose Him, but to cheat in the game, God set up some incentives -- love being the primary.[*]God, in His omnipotence, has the choice to limit His Godness to suit His desires. Those limitations can even go as far as to abolish Himself from doing something, i.e. giving us the free will to choose how we live our lives and what we choose as a deity, if any. Ever heard the question, "Can God build a rock so big that even He can't lift it?" Free will is it, folks.[/list=1]
Now honestly, does that sound uber-conservative right-wing, or does it sound fairly well thought-out and intellectual. I've got more if someone wants to hear it.
And in defense of Christians everywhere, we don't like to claim the Ultra-Conservatives as our own. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the like rub many of us the wrong way; and it's not fair to lump ALL Christians into a group with them.
That's like saying all women are high-maintenance, all Grateful Dead fans smoke pot, and all video games are violent. In each of these cases, it's the "bad seeds" that everyone hears about and then stereotypes are formed.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Now honestly, does that sound uber-conservative right-wing, or does it sound fairly well thought-out and intellectual. I've got more if someone wants to hear it.
Echoing BR a bit, I'd say it sounds like a lot of intellectual effort spent seeking internal consistency among a set of unsupported premises. It's like cutting out your own set of puzzle pieces and showing how cleverly you can make them fit together, rather than figuring out how to put together pieces of an existing puzzle.
Of course, I don't even know why I try to explain anything to BR. I always forget that the universe revolves around his/her opinions and everyone else can take their opinions and f*ck off.
Oh, wait. That's being intolerant. Dang! I can't win with these people! When does my opinion change over to intolerance again? When it disagrees with YOUR opinion?
Why do you presume God has an innate need for "company", for example? I've often thought of that myself in years gone by but when I put myself to task I can't really conceive of a logical reason why God would need "company", and at the same time, make the modality of company so tentative and indirect. Can I keep God company simply by wondering about him? The very notion of company implies a sort of physical (as in physics at least, no necessarily a body) presence I think.
If he really were of such nature that he could feel "lonely" (and solve the problem at the same time), why make himself (herself, itself, however you want to view that) so remote? Why not take a physical form of his own, or make some direct means of contact (even if it were in our sleep for instance)? Personally, I see too many inconsistencies with that line of thinking.
Secondly, why do you presume God's need for this elaborate "game"? Is he bored? Are you sure he has enough human qualities to even consider something like a game? Games are invented to be won or lost. Does God care about such things? Why would he? I imagine that if I created even one solar system (let alone an entire universe), I wouldn't be too concerned with the notion of "games".
In fact, I'm not sure what I *would* be concerned about, since everything that is -- apparently -- is something of my own design. UNLESS, I design it such that it takes on a momentum and energy of its own... and creates something that I had no prior vision of myself. Then watching that thing come into being would perhaps captivate a Godly mind in some way we cannot fathom. This sort of assumes that God has the power to make anything happen, but not necessarily to do more ethereal things like see into the future.
Your notion of self-determination / free-will as the "rock God made but can't lift" is very much analgous to what I was saying above. Creating something in such a way as to not be able to predict its outcome, and have that unpredictability be the very reason for its creation. Maybe we are not God's "company", but instead just a tiny little part of an immense tapestry that is weaving itself right before him (or within him or something)... maybe whether I had sex with my girlfriend before we got married, is no more or less an interest to him then two stars colliding and creating a color he himself has never experienced before.
As for evil and love and curiosity and all such intangible conceptss, I suppose those things could all be by-products of his "engine of creation" that was set into motion long ago. He didn't "place them in us" anymore than he "placed" heroine into the bloodstream of an unborn child (child of an addict). Those ideas have simply taken form over the eons of human development perhaps.
Here's a novel one: what if there is very definitely a God, who created all that we see around us and all that will ever be, but there is no heaven and no hell. Like everything else in the universe, we are simply another type of matter, collected and integrated in a particular fashion, that will one day collapse and return back to our pure state. Just like a star or a drop in the ocean or whatever. Sooner or later, every physical thing is returned to either pure energy or fundamental particles of matter. Maybe, we're just here for the ride.
Spooky to consider, huh?
P.S. i almost got through a whole post without doing a "..." between sentences or thoughts haah
If God wanted to make the universe in such a way that there are other things besides good (mainly evil) that could creep into the picture, then He would do that.
There is no creeping involved. God is omnipotent and the creator, God made evil. Not just created a situation in which it might arise, God knew. God knows all.
If God wanted to MAKE us choose Him or not be allowed to be with Him for the rest of eternity, then it's His prerogotive.
What choice does man have when he is 100% God's creation?
Every thought, feeling and action was created by God.
God is omnipotent. Most everyone who believes in God believes that. That means two things: One, that we will NEVER be able to understand the complexity of God; and two, that God can do whatever He wants -- including limiting HIMSELF if He so chooses.
If God is limited then God is not omnipotent.
Which gets me to my point: I believe that God set up the universe so that humans would keep Him company. On top of that, I believe that he wanted to make it interesting for Himself, and therefore set it up so that humans would not necessarily want to like Him or acknowledge him. Hence evil was *allowed* (not created) to infiltrate the universe.
Who/what/how created evil?
You fall apart here because it is completely illogical.
Also, how can God not know the results of the first plan (pre-flood)?
God made a mistake?