Haran

Asha'man, I quite agree with you. But what you are forgetting is that while you have grown into an adult, you have not grown into a God (at least that I know of ). So, as humans, we are in this child's position in relation to God.

If attempting to believe that a God that created us exists, I believe we must acknowledge that this God knows a few tricks and specifics about his creation that we do not. How, then, can we presume to describe what God should or should not have done? I can't create people, much less a whole world or universe. Though I see what lpetrich sees about how we as humans might go about the process of revealing ourselves as God, we cannot know for sure that this would ultimately be the best way.

When we try to reason for God, we frame him in a box of our own human limitations. I hope this makes it a little more clear. I really don't think that this is a point easily dismissed by an honest person. If one starts with the assumption that there is no God and that the supernatural does not exist, then I suppose it would be easy to put those human limitations on the concept of God.

Haran

Haran

lpetrich, hopefully my post to Asha'man will explain my opinion better.

I very much understand what you are saying in your post. It makes a great deal of sense, though the actual process of revelation probably involves many more complex variables than those you list.

However, as I suggested above, if we believe that a God who created us exists, then obviously he knows more than we may ever, or at least currently, know. Therefore, is it not possible that, considering all the complex variables and more that we don't (yet?) understand, God has revealed himself(herself/itself ), in the best possible way? I personally believe this is possible.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

I do believe that God's intended message has been communicated and I, personally, believe in it. I see many others who still come to God (yes, even as adults), so I don't have the same experiences to conclude anything negative about his "real intentions" in his chosen form of revelation.

Thanks,
Haran

Kosh

Sorry, but you're the one here trying to evangelize. I'm not gonna do your home work
for you! We've heard all this before, and it's
also documented in the lib. If you can't take
the courtesy to read what's been put there....

If you read it, it would save bandwidth, as well
as maybe helping you to come up with better
arguments, or perhaps counter arguments to what's
in there.

Muad'Dib

One observation about God as a parent:

I doubt that the problem is that people fail to understand how [many] Christians see God's actions as uber-responsible; the question is whether this is indeed the case.

Lots of things are possible; are they likely, and why or why not? That's the key question. Understanding one possibility doesn't necessarily lead to its acceptance as being true.

Oh, and for future reference: it is common courtesy in discussions to provide links to things that other parties are requested to read. I'll try to post some relevant library links later tonight if I have time.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]</p>

Haran

I would like nothing more than for you to come back to God, but I am not "here trying to evangelize." As I have stated on other threads, I am here to refine my own opinions and to make other people think, perhaps a little harder, about their own opinions.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I still see no evidence that you have any idea what those articles mean if you can't regurgitate the ideas yourself. I'm not trying to be mean, sorry. If that's the way it has to be, that's fine. There's no need to prove yourself.

Haran

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Very true Muad'Dib. My posts were more of a reaction to lpetrich's post in which he seems to assume the existence of a creating God. I personally think, given a creating God exists, that what I posited is likely.

Thanks,
Haran

lpetrich

That is pure assertion; to me, it's a way of saying "I'm only following God's orders." I wonder what Haran would say to a supporter of some rival creed who makes similar claims.

However, God is always described as having attributes that we can understand. Otherwise, it would be wrong to describe God as being either omnipotent or omniscient or completely benevolent or having any other attribute. I see myself as testing the hypothesis that there exists some entity with the traditional attributes of deity; this is entirely independent of whether that entity knows some tricks that we do not.

Haran, Ben Franklin did not have to know how cumulonimbus clouds get electrically charged in order to work out what lightning is and how to protect against it.

I'm essentially testing the hypothesis that there exists some entity that (1) is omnipotent and (2) wishes to communicate some revelation to humanity. And asking what an omnipotent being would do to achieve that goal. This says nothing about what tricks that entity might have up its (metaphorical) sleeve.

Just as Ben Franklin had done with his famous kite experiment.

"I am just following God's orders." And no, I start with no such assumption, as ought to be clear from my comments. And every time I see such accusations of assumption-making, I wonder if they indicate that the accusers are assumption-mongers who project their assumption-mongering onto others.

And Haran, was Ben Franklin controlling lightning when he was trying to determine if it was really a giant electric spark? When he flew that kite in that famous experiment, was he thinking "I'll see if I can turn lightning into a giant electric spark"? He was thinking that if lightning is a giant electric spark, then thunderstorm clouds must be electrically charged, and that this electric charge ought to be detectable by probing it with a kite with a wet string. Was Ben Franklin trying to charge those storm clouds in that experiment?

I'm glad to see some effort at understanding what I had written.

And what "complex variables" could those possibly be? Revelations are described as giving some sort of message; what could be simpler?

That's the Panglossian premise, that this is the best of all possible worlds.

I'm sure that an advocate of some rival creed would consider Haran all wrong about what that message is.

I never assumed any such thing. I was testing a hypothesis that there was an omnipotent being which wishes to deliver a revelation to all of humanity. In this hypothesis, that entity does not have to do anything else to the Universe we know, although that entity might conceivably do so.

Asha'man

I understand your point, Haran. If we were talking about how and why god created things like quantum mechanics or DNA, your point would be more valid. Some things are clearly extremely complicated, and might require supernatural intelligence to understand.

But we aren’t talking about explaining the creation of the universe here. We are talking very specifically about god delivering instructions to his creation. You claim that god has a message to deliver. You claim that that message is not only important, but actually essential to our eternal health and well-being. That message does not have to explain the incomprehensible, it only has to explain the rules that man must follow. This is not an impossible task, even for mere mortals.

So, again, why has god chosen to reveal his knowledge in such a way that has failed so badly? If his message is Christianity, then more than half the world missed the message. More specifically, if god loves me, if he wants me to be happy, then why doesn’t he deliver his message to mein a way that works? The fact that I am an atheist demonstrates either his failure or his lack of caring, or both.

How responsible would your example Mother be if she insisted on feeding her children nothing but green vegetables, and half the children died from malnutrition? And how responsible would she be if she knew what their nutritional requirements really were? I’m not talking about the best way to communicate with the children here, I’m talking about results: dead children.

eowynn

The analogy of God as a Mother brings up other questions that have bothered me about organized religion for a long time. Why does the mother tell her children that they must eat the vegetables and they must not ask questions? She tells them that, in time, they will understand why the vegetables are good for them. If I was a mother (which I am entirely too young to be, so I do not have that experience) I would try to explain to my children that vegetables provide them certain vitamins which help them grow, etc.. I would not just say "You have to because I told you to." That seems to be what the purported God is doing. He/she/it seems to be saying "Do it because I said so, and if you ask too many questions and decide you don't want to, I will punish you forever." That doesn't seem to me like something a loving god would do to her/his/its children.