The main problem with God.

[Kiljaden]

What is it?

Seriously, before anyone can discuss God, you must first define what you are discussing. If you want to say that "God is Love", then congratulations I believe in God - but it's when you start attributing all the various things you claim to know about this thing that I tend to back away and call you nuts.

If you want to call the universe God (Pantheists), then fine, I believe in the universe, so I believe in God. I just think it's a completely useless idea that tells us nothing about anything.

If you want to call God the magical sky-creature that poofs things into existence, performs miracles, and answers prayers (Christians), then I not only do not believe in your god, but I believe your god does not exist for essentially the same reasons you believe unicorns and tooth fairies don't exist. There are certain things we would expect to see from their existence. Nothing has ever been observed to be poofed into existence, no miracle has ever been objectively observed or recorded by a reliable source, and prayer doesn't do a single damn thing. Actually, people who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse, strangely enough. [Citation 1] (On another note, if everything goes according to God's Plan, why even pray at all if God's just gonna do what he wants? Does anyone else see the contradiction of God's Plan and Free Will?)

If you want to call God the unknowable First Cause\Creator (Deists), the "absent god", then that's fine - but I see your definition and belief as entirely useless. What is the actual reason you believe this, except to exercise a God of the Gaps logical fallacy.



Really though, What Is God? Once defined, God can be discussed. Until then, people who believe in God can adapt the idea on a whim or simply say "well I don't believe in THAT one".


[Citation 1]
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

[Archibald Cunningham]

Really though, What Is God? Once defined, God can be discussed. Until then, people who believe in God can adapt the idea on a whim or simply say "well I don't believe in THAT one".

Everyone has their own perception of God, as God is not only a tautological force but also qualia. Like colours.

Suppose I asked you to describe green without using examples. It's impossible. Qualia - being concepts subjective to the minds and personalities (amongst other things) of all individuals exposed to them - are prone to a personal interpretation by all. This makes the debate of God's nature as pointless and impractical as you believe pantheism is.

I think Lore and interpretation of God is a much more suitable topic of debate.


Archie

[Kiljaden]

You make a point that alludes to the impracticality of ever attempting to convince another person of the existence of the god you believe in. If the god idea is wholly interpretational and subjective, then the idea of a god can never be examined objectively or rationally and is something to just be believed because you happen to think it exists.

Ergo, any attempt to prove God or provide evidence for it is futile. Therefore the lack of belief in God is entirely justified. Along the same lines, it is justified to believe God does not exist because if no one can provide evidence or even come to a consensus of what it is, then obviously it's just a story, an allegory, a myth.

Also, green is the perception your brain registers when the light wavelength within the spectrum of roughly 520-570nm enters your cornea and is tranmitted by the rods and cones in your retina.

[MaximiIian]

Also, green is the perception your brain registers when the light wavelength within the spectrum of roughly 520-570nm enters your cornea and is tranmitted by the rods and cones in your retina.

Thing about that is, not everyone sees green the same way. I'm red-green colour-blind, so I do not see green even remotely similar to the way you people see green. Everyone has different perceptions and modes of thought.

[Gaidin]

Suppose I asked you to describe green without using examples. It's impossible. Qualia - being concepts subjective to the minds and personalities (amongst other things) of all individuals exposed to them - are prone to a personal interpretation by all.

You don't describe definitions. You use definitions to describe other things.

'Green' is a definition, much the same as 'one' is.

[motiv-8]

but it's when you start attributing all the various things you claim to know about this thing that I tend to back away and call you nuts.

That's rather vague..

[Kiljaden]

That's rather vague..

Deliberately. How can you know anything at all about a God, unless the god itself came to you and told you? Some book or some man is definitely not a good source of information.

[Legio XII]

What is it?

Seriously, before anyone can discuss God, you must first define what you are discussing. If you want to say that "God is Love", then congratulations I believe in God - but it's when you start attributing all the various things you claim to know about this thing that I tend to back away and call you nuts.

If you want to call the universe God (Pantheists), then fine, I believe in the universe, so I believe in God. I just think it's a completely useless idea that tells us nothing about anything.

If you want to call God the magical sky-creature that poofs things into existence, performs miracles, and answers prayers (Christians), then I not only do not believe in your god, but I believe your god does not exist for essentially the same reasons you believe unicorns and tooth fairies don't exist. There are certain things we would expect to see from their existence. Nothing has ever been observed to be poofed into existence, no miracle has ever been objectively observed or recorded by a reliable source, and prayer doesn't do a single damn thing. Actually, people who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse, strangely enough. [Citation 1] (On another note, if everything goes according to God's Plan, why even pray at all if God's just gonna do what he wants? Does anyone else see the contradiction of God's Plan and Free Will?)

If you want to call God the unknowable First Cause\Creator (Deists), the "absent god", then that's fine - but I see your definition and belief as entirely useless. What is the actual reason you believe this, except to exercise a God of the Gaps logical fallacy.



Really though, What Is God? Once defined, God can be discussed. Until then, people who believe in God can adapt the idea on a whim or simply say "well I don't believe in THAT one".


[Citation 1]
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

For future reference, don't lump all Christians together. Some of us have different views than might be found in the mainstream. I am Christian, but do not believe in a God that just performs miracles out of the blue; aka the magical sky creature you speak of. I believe in a God that created this universe (not in 7 days, however. You will find that I do not take much of what is found in the Bible literally.), and does love all of his children. I do not believe in the 'Almighty Smiter" God, as Jim Carrey calls him in the movie Bruce Almighty. Many (but not all) things people blame or credit to God or some divine intervention are simply things they cannot understand and so they leave it on God's lap. I am highly liberal and questioning when I read the scriptures.

[Kiljaden]

For future reference, don't lump all Christians together. Some of us have different views than might be found in the mainstream. I am Christian, but do not believe in a God that just performs miracles out of the blue; aka the magical sky creature you speak of.

I try not to lump all Christians together, but are you saying that you don't believe in a transcendant being that has at some time used divine intervention? If you don't, then you don't believe in the god of Christianity, though you may still believe in the divinity of Jesus's teachings and therefore can call yourself a Christian.

I believe in a God that created this universe (not in 7 days, however. You will find that I do not take much of what is found in the Bible literally.), and does love all of his children. I do not believe in the 'Almighty Smiter" God, as Jim Carrey calls him in the movie Bruce Almighty. Many (but not all) things people blame or credit to God or some divine intervention are simply things they cannot understand and so they leave it on God's lap. I am highly liberal and questioning when I read the scriptures.

Well that's a good thing, but let's take it from here. By your definition, God:

• Created the Universe
• Loves his children (us?)
• Is male

So your supreme caring being can now be discussed. What evidence is there that God is male, that he created the universe, and how does the god show his love to the point that you'd say he loves his children?

[Legio XII]

I try not to lump all Christians together, but are you saying that you don't believe in a transcendant being that has at some time used divine intervention? If you don't, then you don't believe in the god of Christianity, though you may still believe in the divinity of Jesus's teachings and therefore can call yourself a Christian.



Well that's a good thing, but let's take it from here. By your definition, God:

• Created the Universe
• Loves his children (us?)
• Is male

So your supreme caring being can now be discussed. What evidence is there that God is male, that he created the universe, and how does the god show his love to the point that you'd say he loves his children?

I believe that God may have at one point used direct intervention, but I will not claim whether it was likely or unlikely, happened or did not happen. I was not there, and I do not know for a fact whether God did or not. I do admit that my idea of God is rather different than that of mainstream Christianity. I do not know what to qualify my idea of God as, at the moment. I have thought on this many a time, and am still undecided. To me it does not matter; God the Creator sent his Son Christ Jesus to preach his word to the world and to die for our sins, so that we may be forgiven, and that we may learn to forgive and love others. That is what truly matters. The rest is not as important.

As for creating the Universe, well there is no proof that it was created by God. I believe that the Universe was created billions of years ago by the Big Bang. I simply believe that God was the impetus behind the Big Bang. That is about as much influence as God had, as far as I believe.

I do believe that God is a loving God, if not exactly an active one. I subscribe to the philosophy of "God helps those who help themselves"; and I extend this to mean that if the suffering of the world is to end, we must all learn to love each other, in the Biblical sense, before suffering is to end. It is our job to fix our own world; Jesus taught us how to do so, and it is up to us to implement His, and by extension, God's teachings. God's love can only be fully recognized if his/her/its children will show it to one another. So while there is much bad in the world, God's love is there, however unseen and small.

And, to clarify, I do not believe God has a sex. I believe God is without gender. There is no "Mrs. God". I simply used the male reference out of a force of habit, without giving it much thought.

[Axeman]

My main problem with god is that he cannot be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. That and all the suffering I see in this world all in the name of a "grand plan" pretty much sapped me.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I agree 100% with you that it's silly to base your belief because of a Book or because Someone told you to.

My beliefs are based on a deep connection with the Lord my God, not a preacher or a Book.

Admittedly, the Lord my God tells me (No not through voices) to study his Holy Word (The Bible).

I logically believe in the God of Gaps, but my experiences with the Lord my God to me are proof enough of his specific existence.

[pericles_plato]

Prayer doesn't always work for that prayed may not be what God wanted. My grandma recently died. We prayed but sadly it was her time to go. I hear God and Jesus through my heart.

[Kiljaden]

Prayer doesn't always work for that prayed may not be what God wanted. My grandma recently died. We prayed but sadly it was her time to go.

Then why pray? Prayer is wholly based on the idea that you can change God's mind. I mean, if you can't change God's mind, then let him do his thing while you do yours. Can you change God's mind by saying "please, please, please"?

God the Creator sent his Son Christ Jesus to preach his word to the world and to die for our sins, so that we may be forgiven, and that we may learn to forgive and love others. That is what truly matters. The rest is not as important.

Interesting. Have you ever read Jesus's words. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have, although most likely not in a storybook fashion but more of a quotemining fashion. Look up the various preachings he did and ask yourself, "Is this divine wisdom?". (Hint: 60% of it is absolutely horrible advice)

As for creating the Universe, well there is no proof that it was created by God. I believe that the Universe was created billions of years ago by the Big Bang. I simply believe that God was the impetus behind the Big Bang. That is about as much influence as God had, as far as I believe.

My point against this God of the Gaps style argument is simply this: Why stuff a God in there? Why do we need it? The the Big Bang the last unknown thing in the univese, the last place to stick God before he ultimately becomes pantheistic?

I do believe that God is a loving God, if not exactly an active one. I subscribe to the philosophy of "God helps those who help themselves"; and I extend this to mean that if the suffering of the world is to end, we must all learn to love each other, in the Biblical sense, before suffering is to end. It is our job to fix our own world; Jesus taught us how to do so, and it is up to us to implement His, and by extension, God's teachings. God's love can only be fully recognized if his/her/its children will show it to one another. So while there is much bad in the world, God's love is there, however unseen and small.

If I help myself, then why do I need God to help me? According to Jesus, the purpose of God is to provide everything for you if you just pray enough. (Matthew 6:29-34 from the Sermon on the Mount)

I do agree on one point, though. We screwed this world up ourselves. We have to fix it with understanding, tolerance, and love. The sheer fact that we can openly talk about this stuff is a freedom some billion people don't have. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are sacred for me, even though I believe in nothing spiritual or supernatural.

[Legio XII]

Then why pray? Prayer is wholly based on the idea that you can change God's mind. I mean, if you can't change God's mind, then let him do his thing while you do yours. Can you change God's mind by saying "please, please, please"?

Here, I agree with you. Prayer, if anything, is more of meditation to me; a way for me to think and see what is laying in front of me so I can carry out what I believe to be God's will. We cannot change God's mind. And as far as everything being provided by God if we just ask, well, that just doesn't happen.

Interesting. Have you ever read Jesus's words. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you have, although most likely not in a storybook fashion but more of a quotemining fashion. Look up the various preachings he did and ask yourself, "Is this divine wisdom?". (Hint: 60% of it is absolutely horrible advice)

Good point. I look at Christ's preachings and am often puzzled. Sometimes it may be that there is hidden meaning, or sometimes I say "what the hell?" and move on. If it doesn't support the idea of a loving God, then I ascribe it to the fact that the Gospels were written by the disciples decades after the Crucifixion of Jesus, which leaves gaps in memory, as well as personal agendas, for each disciple to have their Gospel be preferred. But I am curious as to what you say is horrible advice.

My point against this God of the Gaps style argument is simply this: Why stuff a God in there? Why do we need it? The the Big Bang the last unknown thing in the univese, the last place to stick God before he ultimately becomes pantheistic?

I see where you are coming from. You look for the need for a God. To be honest, there does not seem to be an obvious one to most people. However, it is not a question of need, at least to me. And to be very trite and simple in a counter-point: why not stuff God in there?

If I help myself, then why do I need God to help me? According to Jesus, the purpose of God is to provide everything for you if you just pray enough. (Matthew 6:29-34 from the Sermon on the Mount)

See what I wrote above about prayer. Not all things in the Bible are true, sensible, or sacrosanct to me. It is rather difficult at times, but I do my best to blend logic/common sense with my beliefs, to moderate myself.

I do agree on one point, though. We screwed this world up ourselves. We have to fix it with understanding, tolerance, and love. The sheer fact that we can openly talk about this stuff is a freedom some billion people don't have. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are sacred for me, even though I believe in nothing spiritual or supernatural.

Good point indeed. By the way, I would like to thank you for keeping this discussion civil, at least between you and I. Some of the non-Christians/atheists/whatever on this site can be just as dogmatic and close-minded with their atheist beliefs (or lack thereof) and be just as hateful with them as some so-called Christians. +rep for that.

[dwringer]

Yeah I think each person is allowed his own interpretation of God, because the entire need for a God can only be understood through introspection and asking yourself "the big questions". One can adapt a generic understanding of god from what they are taught, but to me this is not the same as seeking a true understanding. I think atheists and fundamentalists alike are free to seek spiritual understanding through whatever channel they see fit, and trying to adapt scriptures to such understanding seems like the real purpose for applying anything from organized religion. Literalism seems to completely miss the point of what religious texts are about, but I dont' think that means spiritual understanding can't be assisted through such texts. I definitely wouldn't place a higher value on any text than any other. To me, the Tao Te Ching and the Koran all speak of the same things. I think even many religious figures would tend to agree, though they all tend to favor their own creeds I guess. I prefer open mindedness, as faith is certainly nothing I believe should be associated with religion. Religion is more of a quest to me than anything else. So to me, the idea of God is highly abstract. Most discourse on God tends to work no matter what concept of god you use, no matter how abstract. The basic principles can still be understood on some level, I think.

[Rich86]

And to be very trite and simple in a counter-point: why not stuff God in there?

Because sticking a "God did it" sticker on things hinders progress - it says to everyone "we already have an explanation for this" when we clearly don't. Why not stick a 'FSM did it' sticker on it anyway?

[Legio XII]

Because sticking a "God did it" sticker on things hinders progress - it says to everyone "we already have an explanation for this" when we clearly don't. Why not stick a 'FSM did it' sticker on it anyway?

In most cases you are correct. However, in the case of the creation of the Universe, what does it hinder? What are we going to go back and explain? And what good would it do us? Are we going to create a new universe of our own? I would think not.

[Bovril]

It seems to me the question 'what is god' can be answered in the following way (and in my views I follow closely the theologian Tillich):
God is the object of faith of (most) religious people. Since faith can be defined as being the state of having an ultimate concern, then God is the ultimate concern of (again, most) religious people.
So what is an ultimate concern? An ultimate concern is the unifying and final aspect of the personality and psychological processes of a person. However, since in order not to be idolotrous, an ultimate concern must be beyond that which is human (i.e. it must be ultimate/infinite) it is not possible to speak of the subject of a legitimate ultimate concern in finite language. Religious language therefore (and here I include the word God) is symbolic. The idea of symbolic language is oft derided by litteralists of both the fundementalist atheist and the fundemantalist religious persuation. Perhaps this is because they abhor the idea that language can be a point of access to that which is greater than their own intellect. Still, symbollic language is in many ways the most powerful form of comunication with others and with one's self that exists for humanity. No one doubts the appropriateness of symbollic communication in the context of secular concerns- the flag in nationalism, the logo in marketing- yet many would deny the same means of communication to religious discourse.
Perhaps it becomes important here to define a symbol. A symbol may be thought of as a thing that both represents (i.e. points beyond itself), and (perhaps by virtue of doing so) participates in that which it represents. Hence the idea/word/thing that is God is both a representation of something and a thing that participates in the reality of something. And what is that something, well again, we can only use symbollic language, but I think only the most deliberately narrowminded will say they have no idea of what is being driven at by such symbols (and of course I am restricted to word symbols in this format) as the divine, the just, the good, the omnipotent, the creator and such ideas as ultimate love, ultimate freedom, ultimate mercy and so on. We may say that God is the symbol for that which is the unity of all other religious symbols, in other words the essential oneness of the religious concern, or its ultimate principle.


I fear ideas such as these will not be intutive to most people (and the fact I've probably not expressed them as clearly as I would have liked won't help). Still, I think they are important in understanding the space that God and religion fill in the lives of religious people, and in the human psyche itself.

[Mathais]

Here my question how can someone know who god is when they dont know him or believe in him? If you did come to know god you would he is really not that complicated but is quit easy to understand. Other wise am glad that so many in this part of the TWC talk about him so much dispite that they may or may not believe in him