Darth Dane

My observation still stands. If God were able, he could convince me to belief without forcing me to believe. Through his followers even, such that overt, direct intervention (which some say might influence my "free choice") is unnecessary. Given that such does not happen for me or any others that don't believe, I must conclude: God doesn't want us to believe. God doesn't care if we believe. Or God is unable to convince us to believe.
Some say God did this, through Jesus.

God made a man carrying the will of God. But Jesus didn't force his belief on others. They choose, to string him up. And God being God in Jesus, showed that through Love and forgiveness you will understand. But a very interesting part of Jesu' life, was one of his last utterings: "My God, have you left me?" Did God just ask if God had left Godself? That seems ludicrous
Or does this mean, that every human holds the key to heaven?
What more do you want your God to do?
How do you want God to convince you?


This is easy to answer. I am unable to eliminate all suffering. I can't stop a woman being raped in a back alley in Moscow. I can't save a young child from dying of S.A.R.S. in China. I can't stop earth quakes or floods or cancer or a host of other things. I'm not omnipotent. I God that was able and wanted to could stop suffering, through us or otherwise. Since there is suffering, one must assume that God is either not able or doesn't want to stop suffering.

Could you dedicate your life to saving others? And you don't need to go far, if you live in the us, that shouldn't be so hard.





DD - Love Spliff

Darth Dane

Slowly? Considering the age of modern man compared to the age of the universe I think we are kicking the door down.

I suppose you are right


How many bald assertions can you present in one sentence?

I dunno See that sentence, is based on how the, lets say bible tells us how things are. Or is it hindusitic texts that explanis that?
I dunno I get 'em mixed some time.
I don't know if it is true, as I have said, but based on the different divine scriptures, an answer could sound like I gave it.


Let's see, my pantry is stocked, my house is paid for, so my basic needs are covered for the foreseeable future. Now if I lived somewhere that required me to seek food constantly because I didn't know where my next meal would come from then that would be different.

Do you want to go to bahamas? Do you want to have sex again, it may be a day or two, but still. As long as you have wants, you will trey to act on them,

Well you have it ass backwards. The law doesn't make gravity work, it explains how it works.

Yes, what explains where it came from? Who or what made that law as we so plainly can see teh mechanics of?




DD - Love Spliff

JCS

That is why we have unsupported postulations of "other planes" or "is not itself the product of a supernatural ("over-nature") setter of laws." One might say that science has chipped away at these postulations to the point that the only recourse is to develope highly imaginative possiblities to keep these supposed deities on what is essentially life support.

JCS

Well perhaps if you read a few science books instead of,
Of course I will, as long as I do not have to focus all my energies on needs.

Jamie_L

It's not about what I want or don't want. We talking about what we can deduce. I deduce that an omnipotent God would be able to convince me of his existence. Since I remain unconvinced, I deduce he doesn't want or care to convince me, or he can't convince me.

Of course I can, and I don't. I have finite ability to translate my desires into reality, and I have many desires. An omnipotent God does not have to choose how to distribute his abilities between his desires - he would have infinite ability, so all his desires could be fulfilled. So, if God dedicated his existence to eliminating suffering, and God was omnipotent, there would be no suffering. Since suffering exists, either God hasn't dedicated himself to eliminating suffering, or he has but he is not omnipotent.

Jamie

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jamie_L,

Correct. We are assuming that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibelevolent creator of the universe exists.



Not necessrily...as this assumes God would want to. This assumes that God values 'keeping things clean' above mans freedom which is (tautologically) not the case.


Correct. Assuming omnipotence.

Your right. This does include some revelation of a particular religion. Let me rephrase.

If God exists then it is our hearts God is interested in not our mind...because God already knows everything.


Your above statement is correct. However, I am assuming the classical 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnibelevolent creator of the universe' definition of God...therefore (for me) the last one is not really an option.

No. Not at all. You could paint a portrait of God playing the 'What IF God exists' game using logic and common sense. Afterwards you could read the Bible...not knowing whether it's true or false...and get almost the exact same portrait of God. That fact that these two views of God end up being so similar is more coincidence than I care to ignore.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Nostalgic Pushhead

You're exactly right. On this thread, playing the "what if" game, most of you have come to the conclusion that if God exists, he's a really really poor excuse for a God.

If you read the bible, you'll get the same thing.

Its a miracle!

Angrillori

SOMMS, thank you for cutting to the chase, this is the dialogue I was hoping for. However, I think some of your conclusions are flawed. (But some seem valid.)
Not neccessarily not evil, just not hostile towards us. He could be evil but indifferent to humanity or evil and unable to vent his wrath upon us. I think your point is valid if we rephrase:

God is either not hostile towards humans, or is unable to enact his hostility.
This seems valid, with the disclaimer that he also might not be able to prevent our freedom.

(As an aside, doesn't this postulated 'love of free will' actually make God evil? Why isn't it evil to value the ability to rape torture and murder over the ability to not be raped tortured and murdered? And why can't God send the same 'spirits' he uses to strip free will when its in his interest to stop murders, or tortures, or rapes today?)
This also seems to follow, but I think it's already been stipulated (I think it is one of the first things I posted. The lack of evidence for God indicates his indifference towards us, or his powerlessness to provide evidence.
Well, I don't think this follows. The universe around us offers either no clues to salvation (if you discount that which claims to be divinely inspired but lacks proof) or offers many contradictory methods to salvation (if you accept the numerous claims of divine inspiration.)
So anything having to to with salvation is certainly not something that follows from this universe we're in.
I think this falls into the same category as the last. This universe really gives no evidence of any relationships with God. In fact, this leads to two other conclusions:
1) Again, God is indifferent to us, or powerless to form a relationship with us. or
Even if we grant 'relationships without evidence'
2) God rewards gamblers, those who happen to guess at the right set of answers lacking any evidential or rational reason to choose one dogma over another.

Gwa?

The bible paints nothing like what you see in the universe. Reading the bible shows a God who:
1) Flings miracles around willy-nilly
2) Isn't afraid to use miracles to win converts
3) Actively wants converts and has the power to get them
4) Gives followers superpowers
5) Imbues followers with the ability to resist temptation and evil
6) Happily interferes with free will to achieve his ends

But, I reiterate, thank you for the post, these are the musings I'm wracking my brain on. What kind of God would inflict this particular universe on us.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Agrillori,

Thank you for your comments. I enjoy these 'what if' mental experiements.


Let me first say that, in answer your original post, I am using the 'classical' definition of God...omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe.

With that said...allow me to add a few thoughts.

Your statement is tautologically true. If one uses the 'classical' definition of God (as I do) one can eliminate the second option.




An interesting question. However, I think our exploration of this question will ultimately lead us to two topics: what exactly defines 'evil' and what exactly do we feel 'freedom' means. I personally don't feel it is evil for God to give me freedom...even if it means I could (if I so chose to do so) murder someone. I feel, ultimately, that the blame in such a case resides squarely at my feet...not God's.



You are correct. Jamie_L pointed this out as well. This was a statement I made that was specific to the Judeo-Christian framework.


I would disagree with this Angrillori. Here is why. From my perpective...the universe does give us evidence of relationships with God. There are billions of people on this planet who claim to have a relationship with God. And without getting into any specific religious detail they all seem to share at least one thing in common...an attitude of openness towards God AND a willingness to seek/know him.

So please allow me to rephrase...

IF 'God' exists...


THEN one's revelation of 'God' is dependant upon one's attitude towards 'God'.

I think this follows given the assumption that God exists and the fact that billions of people claim to know God.


Your thoughts?




Well I would offer that the picture that the Bible paints of God is open to interpretation. And I understand that interpretation is heavily influenced by such things as our opinions, world views, agendas and previous experience, etc.

I would also offer that setting these things aside...the Bible does describe a God that fits all the above conclusions you and I have agreed upon. Something to think about.



I guess I would leave you with a few more characteristics of God (if he existed) that I forgot in my first post.


IF 'God' exists THEN...

-'God' has authority over everything in this universe...this follows from his creating it and his omnipotence.

-'God' is the moral standard/law...this (morality) is a specific instance of something he has authority over (see above).

-'God' is holy (sinless)...this follows from his omnibenevolence.

Depending on what you think 'holy', 'sinless' and 'benevolent' mean this may seem like a mere restatement of that axiom 'God is omnibenevolent' to you. That is fair I suppose. However, to me this means something slightly different. It means that God commits no sin. Period. He is completely devoid of any 'bad' thing. In essence, (to me) it means that God himself is the definition of what 'good' means. In other words...it is not that case that God is defined in terms of 'good', but rather 'good' is defined in terms of God.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Angrillori

Fair enough, I guess I was wondering if those are validly ascribed to God, given this universe. With the PoE many logically claim that omnibenevolence is exclusive of omnipotence and omniscience. In fact, I'm having a lot of fun exploring it in a thread entitled something like "Omnipotnce, Free will, and Choosing" elsewhere in this forum.

I mean, based on what we see here, what traits can we ascribe to any metaphysical force if we at first grant it existance as an assumption.
Fair enough. I was trying to leave things as open-ended as possible though.
I'm just pointing out that the value system that places "ability to do harm" over "the ability not to be harmed" is a rather skewed-seeming value system, regardless of what actually occurs.

He had to choose between: let them do harm, and let them not be harmed, and he chose the first.

The idea came to me as I read your line that God likes free will more than he dislikes the evil we cause with it. That just sounded to me like, God likes to let people do bad things to you more than he likes stopping them from doing bad things to you.

Weird, but that's all for another thread.

And many others who achieve the same feeling for entirely different reasons. In fact, could a Buddhist, a Hindu, A Confucian, A Shintoist, and a Christian even all be said to be pusuing the same God, even if the all had the same experience?

More importantly, if the same experience can be chalked up to physical means and self-fulfillment, then we're out of the 'God' box in the first place. ie. If I'm raised in a culture where a certain belief is the norm, isn't it natural for me to explan my circumstances in the framework of that belief?

And since no one, in their relationship with god has been given knowledge they otherwise would not have, this seems to be the case. If someone with no scientific background came up with the unified theory of everything and said 'God told me' this would be evidence of a relationship with God.

Feelings, impulses, and internal dialogue are not. I'll still chalk this one up to, lack of evidence of a relationship with God. Just becaause billions were brought up to believe a particular experience is 'a relationship with God' doesn't mean it actually is. Right?

Which ones? The free will > suffering, OK
But, above and beyond that, this universe seems to show a god remarkably indifferent to what and whether we believe in him and how and whether we pursue that belief. (No rewards for believers or punishments for non-believers here.)

Whereas the bible clearly paints a God who wants adherents and will do what it takes to get them. Ah well.

I don't get it. This universe doesn't necessarily show we can ascribe omnipotence to God, nor even creatorship.

But, yes, if God is omnipotent then (even lacking creatorship) has authority, in that authority roughly synonyms power. (On Heaven as it is in Earth, authority comes from the barrel of a loaded gun.)
I don't think so. An unjust authority is still unjust. In fact, its believed the people have a duty to rebel against an unjust authority. So, merely having authority doesn't make God a moral standard. Saying something is right doesn't make it so, no matter how much force you have to back yourself up. But this also posits the omnipotent God, something this universe doesn't seem to offer.

(Not that this universe shows God as unjust, it in fact seems neutral on God's justice, since as we pointed out, neither wrongdoer or virtuous man are rewarded and punished as far as we can be sure.)
Again, if there is a metaphysical being, this universe doesn't necessarily indicate anything about its omnibenevolence, just to hammer home the fact that I'm trying to see what we can say of whatever God may be out there, given only the trait of 'existance.'


Once more though, thank you for the post, I appreciate your thoughts.