Cipher Girl

Hi Pyrrho. Thanks for the links, I will back order.

Hi beastmaster
I am not convinced that the inability to rigorously define god poses an insoluble problem in determining the plausibility of god's existence. We can infer the existence of plenty of concepts that are quite vague, like "love" or "intelligence." I think it is sufficient that we know certain attributes of god (or love or intelligence) in order to ascertain its probable existence/non-existence.

We often draw inferences based on incomplete information. I believe such inferences may be valid.

HOWEVER, what makes god unique among concepts is that all believers will admit that, at some level, god is beyond human comprehension. It is not merely that god is indefinable -- it is that god is unknowable.

I disagree. Even though each person uses ideas such as love or beauty, they have a definition in mind when they say the words. These term are not vague or incomprehensible even though they may be subjective and defined by one's culture. I think retreating into saying that god is there simply because I can't comprehend the complexity of the universe is simply saying one does not want to continue investigating and has given up.

On another thread a theist once said that if they knew how an art object such as a bronze was made, it would loose all beauty for them. I simply can't understand such an attitude, for me it would increase the beauty of the object. I could see both the beauty of the composition and the beauty of the skill needed to create the object. Perhaps this is why some people need mystery in their explanations of the natural world. Again, the emotional need for mystery.

I guess that makes me a materialist. I can speculate on a lot of things that may be logically possible. A giant bloated purple rhino orbiting Uranus is an example. Logically possible but physically impossible. I could say that there exists a god which only exists outside the universe and nothing more. It threw the dice and the random universe which emerged is all there is. Said diety exists outside of the universe. This would be logically possible and I could not make any statement of it physical posibility. But why would I need such a deity if if does not interact with our universe? It is not needed to explain the workings of the universe.

But I'm still giving this god attributes. Many theists like to claim that god exists only outside of the universe but at the same time they like to claim that god makes effects inside of this universe. Both cannot be true at the same time. But they still insist that both can be true, but when pressed they claim its all mysterious. I did not say that their deity had to be detailed to the nth degree, but it should be logically coherent. And given enough details so that I can at least discuss this with a common understanding of what is meant by the term god.

I agree with Pyrrho when he states that even though we don't know exactly what light is, its effects can be observed and measured and reproduced. But many theists claim that such is not the case with god.

Cipher Girl

Hi smalltown. Welcome to II. I'm always interested in discussiong the concept of god.

My question's are as follows, If you claim there is no God, then isn't good and evil relative ? Who decides what is evil and good, if there is no God then wouldn't it stand to reason good and evil are neutral, and that morality is simply up to the interpretation of each individual since there are no higher laws?
Good and evil , like beauty and ugliness are subjective judgements each person makes according to their cultral norms. Do you need god to explain beauty vs ugliness, intelligence vs stupidity? If these values weren't subjective wouldn't there be only one definition of these terms. And wouldn't all people agree on what actions are considered good and what actions are considered evil?

As a Christian, what do you think about the OT version of god versus the NT version of god? They are very different don't you think? Why did the description of good and evil acts change from one version of god to another version of god? Are they the same god?

Cipher Girl

Hi Mageth
Then you would understand who their god was and wouldn't ask such difficult questions anymore!
I well know the feeling. I was invited to a Vacation Bible school when I was 13 by our neighbors. I know I bothered the teacher a lot as she would get quite impatient with all of my questions. I certainly was not satisfied by her answers. But they asked me not to come back when some of the other students also started asking questions.

My questions were sort of:
1) How do we know god exists if he can't be seen or observed?
2) Why couldn't Jesus be an ordinary person who was caught up in strange events?
3) Why was god always mad at the things he created, couldn't he fix them?

And I was just 13 at the time. Nowdays I have a lot more questions.

the_cave

It excludes a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God as outlined in a literal interpretation of the Bible, sure.



Oh, it is not. Cultural definitions of "good" do vary, but much of the variance can be explained, imo, by internal contradictions within the culture--i.e. a priori assumptions about what's good. I argue that the resolution of all cultural debates about the meaning of "good" would in fact produce a universal definition that would satisfy everyone.

But besides that, I'd like to know why you think the word "greatest" is subjective.

Are you saying it would have been better that none of us had been born?

Besides, humans don't ultimately create children--the laws of the cosmos do.



Well, that would depend on your reasons for hating them. If you hated them merely because they were a different ethnicity than you, that would clearly be wrong.

Barring that kind of reason, I think it would be instructive here to distinguish between intellectual love and emotional love. Intellectual love is an attitude of desiring a change of character in someone, for everyone's good--including their own. Thus can one love, for example, those who do evil, by a) hoping that their just punishment effects a change in their character, not only so those whom you emotionally love will live better lives, but so that the person being punished will live a better life, too. If they are living a better life, the human race is living better, as well. If they're not, and no one cares, we're worse off as a whole. And that's objectively speaking.



Explain how quantum mechanics is the reason why the universe exists. Are you saying you've got a theory of quantum gravity?

Over time, I become less and less inclined to distinguish between reason and purpose.

Granted. However, the premise is false, for what it's worth.

beastmaster

Hello Cipher Girl,

I agree: for god to be relevant, he must interact with our universe.

OK, here's where I disagree. I am not convinced that it is impossible for god to both transcend the universe and affect the universe at the same time. Sorry, that's just not axiomatic for me. Just because something seems contradictory or paradoxical or counterintuitive to us humans doesn't mean it cannot be true.

The god that is reducible to logical coherency cannot be the "true god."

Many atheists think that theists are not playing fair because they come up with "shifty" definitions of god.

I, in contrast, think it is not fair on theists to expect them to come up with a god that only fools believe in. Nobody is saying that god can be understood like the internal combustion engine -- in logical, mechanistic, or standard English language terms.

I think the atheist should assume for the sake of argument that the nature of god is mysterious -- even logically incoherent.

But I don't think that is conceding too much.

Where I think the shoe drops for the Xn is that, if they want to presuppose a mysterious god, one that is truly beyond human comprehension, then it is impossible for the Xn to know enough about that god to justify worship.

Moreover, we can test the plausibility of god in terms of natural phenomena -- i.e., the sufficiency of materialist explanations for phenomena justifes the inference that there is no god. But that is looking to the supposed effects of god (which is entirely proper) rather than examining the nature of god (which I think might as well be "off-limits").

I_C_THE_LITE

You should not be perplexed by the "Nature of God", because any such derivative is solely interpretive. You have to ask, What for what reason do we need a God. In pre-biblical times, the gods were eschewed as a means of attempting to manipulate nature. The native were awed by weather patterns, destruction etc.. Thee elements were out of their control, so a God of one sort or the other were created. Still, what would be the nature of such a God and how would this nature change when scientific exploits were used to explain myriad phenomena. Those natures, of course, would change as needed.
Furthermore, the elite within a society tend to take hold of any idea and expound upon that until the masses are left with no alternative except to believe in that. Again, as society changes, the motive of the elite changes; therefore, any meaningful Nature of God would thus change. So, it seems that the Nature of God is manufactured and is always subject to change in interpretation.

smalltown

Hello Cypher Girl :

You posed the following :

"As a Christian, what do you think about the OT version of god versus the NT version of god? They are very different don't you think? Why did the description of good and evil acts change from one version of god to another version of god? Are they the same god?"

Here is my response :

First I believe the God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same, if you wanted Bibilical reference you could look up Isaiah 40:8 and Hebrews 13:8. God has not changed but it my humble opinion the way He approaches man has. In the OT God is very active among the Israelites, Despite having the presence of God around them all the time, the Israelites continued to wallow in sin and reject God (the OT in my little nutshell). So a new covenant was given that allows all men to approach God through Jesus, This does not change God who loves us and wants us to love him but the way He approaches us is definitely different in my opinion.

I know this sounds like preaching but you did ask the question, I am not sure what you are asking with "Why did the description of good and evil acts change from one version of god to another version of god? Are they the same god? ", if you could re-word it , it might help me understand where you are coming form, sorry...

I am still interested in the good/evil discussion. Here is my humble take :

If evolution is true, then there is no good and evil. It is all relative. The Big Bang was a neutral event (it can't be defined as good or bad) the first microorganisms were neutral (again it can't be defined as good or bad), therefore since everything evolved from neutrality, good and evil do not exist and each person is free to choose what they decide is the best course for human endeavor (becoming a doctor or a murderer), since at the end of their life that is it anyway, there is no heaven or hell. And humanity goes forward with everyone being "God" since there is no good and evil or A God to answer too.

I cannot accept this, I believe that in all of us there is either a desire to do good or evil, and we know what they are. The reason we do is because there is a higher power, and that higher power has made good relative and evil relative as well. I believe the choices we make in this lifetime have eternal consequences, if I murder someone and cause that family grief and suffering, their will be accountability beyond this life. If I say something to hurt your feelings, what do I care if there is no heaven or hell, I will just go on hurting everyones feelings. However if I am accountable for the way I treat people beyond this life it makes a radical differnece in approach. This is why I believe in God because there is good and evil and actions are accoutnable beyond this life.

I know I rambled but I appreciate your time and responses

David M. Payne

Cypher Girl, do you think Eric H will be back to really answer your question? I doubt he can personally. It's hard to describe a myth accurately.

Smalltown. It is always interesting to see one of the theists try to explain away how their just, merciful, kind and omnipotent etc God could be the biggest mass murderer of all time. Nice try, but it fails, as they all do.

David

" Authoritarian Gods and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!"

Darkblade

I should've "hashed" this out earlier in the thread, but I didn't think to. I do like Cipher Girl's OP, or the five points in it rather, but here is my "expanded version":

Ignorance - Lack of knowledge about reality, logic, science, etc.
Faulty assumptions - "God exists." (when this is what needs to be proven) "Evolution is false." (when they clearly have not researched this or even opened their minds to the possibility) The belief that unknowns must be attributable to a god, and, furthermore, their god.
Blind faith - Believing in spite of their own religious document(s) contradicting with reality and even within itself or with each other.
Vagueness - Refusing or somehow overlooking giving definition or meaning to the terms they use, such as "god", "perfect", "infinite" (infinite in which respect(s)?), good, evil, etc.
Ambiguity - Misusing words (whether intentionally or "intuitively") so that it is difficult to determine the point of their utterances.
Misdirection - Shifting the burden of proof to you (attempting to avert having to respond to your argument) or knocking down a strawman of what you said.
Dogma - Saying things not pertinent to the argument, such as making grandiose blanket statements in a futile proselytizing attempt.
Logical fallacies - 1=3.
Circular logic - "1. The bible says god exists. Refer to 2 for proof of the bible. 2. God says the bible is true. Refer to 1 for proof of god." (another quote from myself)
Self-contradiction - Going back on or heavily modifying what they had said earlier, so as to try not to let their argument fall apart.
Hypocrisy - Not following their own rules, and/or choosing to not believe in explicit or ostensible rules in their own religious text(s).
Misanthropy - "All people are wicked, evil, sinful, and deserving of eternal death and suffering."
Self-loathing - Basically the same as misanthropy, but respective to themselves, and sometimes even stronger. (I thought it was important to note that they hate themselves, at least in theory.)
Lack of self-reliance - "If there is no god, my life has no purpose or meaning."
False promises - "Heaven awaits if you have faith."
Scare tactics - "Hell awaits if you refuse to believe."

I am sure that all of these do not apply to all theists, so, theists, if you disagree with one or more of these respective to yourself, or another theist, feel free to disregard it. I mean you no harm. You may have your beliefs as you wish.

I will append to my compilation of tenets if I am presented with more that I would like to add, so, if you like, feel free to suggest additional ones.

Eric H

Hello Cipher Girl

just a very quick reply in between long shifts at the moment.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Cipher Girl
I feel that if I cannot explain something to someone in a simple enough manner so that they can understand the basics, then it is my fault not theirs.
That is, if they are willing to understand.
----------------------------------------------------


I agree with the above quote totally.
As you say, unless the other person is ‘willing’ to understand, the chances are, that they will not.
It seems that both atheists and theists are not willing to understand the opposing view, because we have both become entrenched in our own views.
I sense from reading posts in this forum that it probably takes about the same amount of research, conviction and faith to hold either view.
I say faith or trust for an atheist in a loose sense because there is not absolute proof that God does not exist.



----------------------------------------------------
quote Cipher Girl
Yes, it seems that every time a theist starts talking about their deity, they retreat into vague and convoluted language. How would they feel if their auto mechanic started saying "Well it's a mystery why this problem is occuring, but if you give me enough money I'm sure I can fix it for you.?" And everytime you ask for a description of the problem the answer also seems to change. Would you trust that auto mechanic? I know I wouldn't.
-----------------------------------------------------



I feel this is probably not a fair analogy, because cars are man made, and you would assume that a mechanic would be trained and he would also have a car manual with the exact detail of all components. Therefore he should have all the knowledge to fix a man made car.
If God exists, then Christians or Muslims, or Hindu cannot have that same extensive knowledge about God; because we did not create God.

peace

Eric