spurly

BH

I can see what you are saying, to a point. I guess I may need to clarify what I meant, but that just may muddy the water.

I guess what I was commenting on were people who think that we, as humans, should set the standard for what God is like. That is something that can not be, if God exists.

If he exists, then we have to let him define himself by his terms - and accept those.

Please forgive me for not making myself completely clear, I'm new here.

Kevin

Solsticin

If god (God?) were real and something we could see attributes of, then we wouldn't have to make up stuff. The fact that god/God is non-existant is the crux of your problem I think.

Hobbs

I think that, in the same way, I should not say "this is what I think trees should be like if they exist." Trees define themselves by their very existence, i.e. they set the definition of what trees are.

I look around me, and I see trees. I examine them, and I learn about what they are like, I learn the terms that define them.

If God actually exists, then of course he would set the definition of what he is. But I see no evidence that he exists, at least not outside of his believers' minds.

I think you are conflating two issues here. The second issue which I think may be lurking alongside what you are saying here is the question of whether any of us would worship God if indeed we were to see that he, like trees, exists. But that is a different question, approached in a different manner. It is a question of fact as to whether or not trees or gods exist. It is a question of values as to whether either, if indeed it/they does/do exist/s, should be worshipped. Your assumption #1 is relevant to my second question (whether God is worthy of worship), but it is irrelevant to my first question (whether God exists in the first place).

KJELLMUSIC

I see theists (especially modern Christians and now Muslims who want to deflect bad press) say in response to accurate but unflattering examples of their faiths that these things have nothing to do with their religion or "god". The argue that their god is always about "love" and "beauty", etc.
This almost always flies in the face of their religion's history and many teachings up until now as they try to redefine their "god" and make it like they want it in a new-age, lovey-dovey sense.

Atheists are not saying this is what I want "god" to be, rather the religious are saying "this is what I, personally, want my god to be like". Atheists take these great number of different personal definitions of "god", the historical evidence of these religions, lack of any actual evidence of any god and come to the conclusion that it makes absolutly no sense in the way that theists claim. This is done in the same way that everyone uses reason to figure things out in their day to day lives.
If you can't back up your extraordinary claims then you should be reexamining why you believe them yourself. Reality makes so much more sense.

curbyIII

Spurly, you are mistaken in believing that we should not assign attributes to God. Suppose that this is so, then no one can say what God is really like. What if he sends every Christian to hell and everybody else goes to heaven? What if he tortures everyone with a beard and no one else? What if he is an all powerful cheese floating between the Magellanic Clouds (my personal religion)? A God whose attributes we don't know (not even to a very limited extent) is meaningless. We can behave as if he did not exist. If you argue that you can give him general characteristics of goodness then you CAN assign attributes to him after all! Who decides what these attributes are? Certainly not science or empirical evidence, there seems to be a marked absence of this. If it is the Bible or Christians then we are back to where we started from and the arguments here are valid. Let's assume for a second that your crazy, illogical, and circular idea that God should assign attributes to himself; is valid. Then how do we know what they are? If the Bible tells us, then we can attribute characteristics to God based on the Bible. We also have the problem that God has no basis on which to assign attributes to himself. Why should he want to be good? Why does he not define himself to perpetuate yellowness throughout the universe? Of all of the ways God could have assigned attributes to himself, don't you find it suspicious that he turned out to be just the way we want him to be?

The true arguments given here are as follows:

1) This is what God is defined to be by: the Bible, most Christians, etc.
2) If such a God existed then X would be true.
3) X is not true.
4) God does not exist.

Note that no one is saying that God is not like the Christians defined him to be. Atheists simply say that if God, as defined by Christians, existed then our world would be different from what it is. Others point out that the very definition of God is self-contradictory (not quite true but close). You have misunderstood most of the arguments posted here.

emur

But that is all we have - humans setting the standards for what God is like. Whenever you hear a discription of God, it comes from a human, whether in the bible or at your local church.

I'm quite willing to let him define himself, but that human element? That's got to go.

Mel

rainbow walking

conclusion spurly.

You said: It seems to me, that if a God exists, he should be the one who sets up the terms that define him.

I wholehertedly concur.

So if such a being or thing has made no apparent effort to do so himself for many thousands of years, what are we to conclude from this?

If many folks continue to claim the existence of one particular god or another and assign specific attributes to their claims, isn't the sceptic perfectly within his right to critically review each claim and compare it to the larger body of knowledge that has been accumulated by humanity down thru the years?

Certainly, if such a creature existed it wouldn't be unreasonable for us humans to expect it to define its existence in some way or another. But when we are hammered with a deluge of conflicting and often incomprehensible claims, from humans and not this god himself, that each define this being in a subjectively personal way, it has the effect of diluting the claims veracity in proportion to the absence of any objectivly verified substance to the claims. How long will it be before this creature makes a personal appearance so we can all stop guessing, doubting or believing? What is the significance of such a being relying on humanities imagination rather than its intellectual prowess? What does it fear in exposing itself to critical examination?

These are all important questions in ascertaining the value of making a choice.

Darth Dane

Well, according to the bible and/or history someone named jesus, claimed to be God. And what happened? We killed him, sent him back from whence he came. Do you think he would come now, with all these wars on religion goes on. One will say he IS, another no he isn´t!, and boom another war about that.





DD - Straw Spliff

Clutch

I'm glad this all came up, because personally I'm sick of the way people say that Zeus was a myth just because of all the stories about him doing this or that. Zeus's existence is defined by Zeus -- not by puny mortals.

spurly

I guess one of the problems is that Christians themselves are in disagreement on who God is. So which Christian view do we take to analyze?

If God existed, and he is a God who gives free will to humans, and he is a God who lets the choices humans make have an impact in this world, would our world really be that much different than it is today? I don't know. I'm just asking.

I may have misunderstood a lot of the arguments here. But one thing I do like is that people here are at least "looking" for something. Many people go through their lives without ever examining what they believe to be true about God, the world, or themselves, and that is indeed sad.

Kevin