ETA: People have discredited your hypothesis because it’s poorly formed. Instead of going back to the drawing board to come up with a better hypothesis, you insist that the problem is not with your argument but with those who are looking too closely at the inherent flaws. Is that really an honest approach to a well formed personal philosophy?
Okay, so a picture is starting to emerge here. You’re less trying to propose a theological model and more trying to slide a crowbar into existing theological models and bend them a little bit in the hopes of making them better. It doesn’t work on atheists because atheists 1) don’t play that kind of game, and 2) everything theological model is worse than atheism. (
) But you’re not really targeting atheists - you’re hoping to reach out to people the throes of the same terror you were basted in as a child, and offer them a step up - not a complete escape to the glorious perfection of atheism, which is too large a leap, but rather a smaller change that might be possible to swallow.
We don’t have a ton of the latter type of person here, and I doubt most of them play in the religious threads in Great Debates. We atheist are pretty numerous here and as a result feel emboldened. 
So anyway, you want to come at this from how this might look to a hardcore evangelist. And (speaking theoretically here) I suspect it would help not at all.
I’ve never heard an evangelist (or any theist, really) be too concerned about what substance the god is manufactured of. Sure, to some of them the idea that we could have god-substance might be heretical, and to some it would merit no more than a shrug. But regardless of what God is composed of, it isn’t really going to limit his behavior any. If you’re into God wanting to bathe the earth in fire, having god be omnipresent in all the things he’s about to burn doesn’t change that. It just means he doesn’t have to move too far to reach the things he’s going to ignite.
i didn’t say they don’t matter, and specificity matters a great deal with some subjects. but the whole point of THIS exercise is to get you to think past the definitions to contemplate something bigger. You keep wanting to crawl into the box.
Oh, and a good five or six times anyway.
So what is your purpose? To convince me I’m wrong? If I don’t convince you to see things from my point of view, it doesn’t really bother me. I haven’t lost anything. I’m just a little baffled as to why it bothers you if I believe differently about God than you do. Or about Life. Or about anything really.
I think the idea that God would ever want to bathe the earth in fire to be ridiculous. Why would the supreme creator of all require anything of us at all? What could He/She/It possibly be lacking? I think the traditional concept of God as something somehow outside ourselves is the problem. If God is within us, is a part of everything we do because HE IS US, then it puts us in a different position. We can think of the cop waiting in hiding to give us a speeding ticket, and we keep checking to see if God happens to be watching, whereas if we just didn’t speed because it usually increases the risk of an accident, then we’d be doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.
I’m not saying changing the paradigm of God is going to have much effect on atheists or theists, quite frankly, unless one is looking for a change. Most people seem to find comfort in believing what they’ve always believed, even if their beliefs are flawed. As for what God is manufactured of? I don’t believe I’ve ventured into that territory, unless you mean my reference to God as Life. Again, I find both of those words to be abstract nouns that could refer to a thousand things, which is what makes them malleable and subject to interpretation. Oddly, I don’t think anyone else has really gone into much detail with their definitions of god or life either. Maybe because they’re both words that are a lot harder to pin down than you’d think.
I remind you again that you presented your hypothesis to us. We did not knock down your door and demand an explanation of your personal thoughts on god and life.
So yes, the purpose of my arguments (and this forum) is to convince you that you’re wrong. Additionally, if you are not bothered about whether or not you’ve convinced me of your point of view, why have you spent days and 11 pages responding to people who don’t agree with it?
Conversation, it would appear. There should be a section called “Some Crazy Ideas of Mine.”
Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share(MPSIMS).
Definitely. We could all use a place like that from time to time. And when we post there, our user id’s should be automatically redacted.
There is. Only the title is Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
I’m going to chop this up a bit because you seem to be bouncing around and I (being me) like responding to everything.
Obviously there are various answers to this, but one of the more internally-consistent ones I’ve heard regarding Christianity is that sin annoys god and everything else flows from him not being able to handle that too well. He created a bunch of people (for some reason) and discovered that because the people have free will some of them do things he doesn’t like, and he just can’t take it. It fills him with a frothing rage. So he does various things to try to deal with the problem - sending all the sinners out of his sight, punishing the sinners to make himself feel better, beating on somebody else to let him relieve his stress and help him put up with us. (Like punching a pillow, but with more crosses and death.)
God could really use a good therapist.
So the argument is basically that cops don’t speed, so if we were all cops deep down inside, nobody would speed?
And the argument is that we’re all God deep down inside, so that nobody at all would ever act like Trump, even Trump? That in your model everybody in the world is nice and godly and nobody is mean?
I know you’re here to witness, not debate, but seriously, have you ever heard of disproof by contradiction?
(Also I’m pretty sure some cops speed, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Yeah, it’s hard to sell to people who aren’t buying. And atheists in particular tend to be critical about large obvious disproofs for things they’re considering.
Oh, I can easily define the terms “god” and “life”. And “God” and “Life”.
god: something somebody worships or believes is worthy of worship.
life: A systemic process that results in the system in question having some or all of the properties of self-repair, reaction to its environment, reproductive ability, and the production and use of energy from external materials or energy sources - excluding systems with boundaries that we have a hard time defining, and specifically excluding machines and AIs because the idea of those being alive scares us.
God: A specific deity - generally whichever one is most prominent in whichever culture or religion is being discussed. In america is usually some variant of El/Yahweh.
Life: One of several boardgames by Milton Bradley.
It’s not always a matter of opinion. Your valiantly-defended idea has actually been demonstrated to be wrong. You just haven’t caught up with reality (or the discussion) yet.
Oh, and can I amend my definition of the word “god”? It occurred to me that there are gods that nobody worships or believes is worthy of worship. So, new definition:
god: something somebody calls a god.
Thanks for the clarification.
This is a very anthropomorphic view of god (man created god in his own image) and as such, god has all the same faults that man has, such as vanity, jealousy, and anger. To ascribe human faults such as these to god really does not make a lot of sense—and yes, I am saying that the god of the bible often times does not make a lot of sense. This interview excerpt with Neale Donald Walsch attempts to offer a partial explanation for the father figure god we see so often:
Do you think the whole idea of a male “Father God” is a product of our immaturity as a species? In other words, as a child needs a parent, have we created the idea of a “Man in a Robe” God to fill this need?
NDW: I think we came up with a Father God not only for those reasons but because the people who were creating the messages of the world’s great religions happened to be male. Religion emerged as a societal expression of spirituality during a time of enormous male dominance on the planet. So I think there are two reasons for a male Father God. One, because it was men who were writing the stories, and two, as you say, it was realized that the human species being as young and immature as we are, needed a parental figure, someone to whom they felt they could turn in times of difficulty, sorrow, stress and challenge, someone who could bring them assistance and insight and wisdom, and then look to those spiritual leaders like a parental figure.
http://wisdom-magazine.com/Article.aspx/3824/
It’s logical that we would model our concept of god on parent figures, in that it’s one of the acts of creation we can identify with. It’s also part and parcel of the animal kingdom, parents caring for their offspring. I would say it’s a significant characteristic of life, parents caring for offspring. But the model is also flawed. Not all parents are good, and not all parents love their children unconditionally. But it’s a start. It’s a metaphor to help us understand how the creator of the universe, if there is one, could actually care about us. A promise od damnation and hellfire for all eternity if we should happen to break one of god’s rules deems contrary to a being that shows unconditional love. Breaking a commandment is certainly a condition.
No question, depending on your version of God.
I think what I’m trying to say is if our fear of getting caught is our prime motivation for doing things, then we’re doing it wrong. I know all kinds of cops that speed, and not necessarily just when the flashing lights and siren are on.
Some of my best friends are atheists. Some days I’m an atheist myself. Other days I’m not. I’m not entirely sure why one has to be one or the other.
Those are nice definitions, but I wouldn’t necessarily agree with them. As I’ve tried to explain, I see a lot more in common between god and life than these definitions allow for. Semantics are one way to approach a discussion, but they’re not the only way. Let me ask you: have you ever been blown away by the miracle of life? Has it ever blown your socks off just how humans emerge from pretty much nothing, a sperm cell and an egg cell, and incubate for nine months inside a woman’s womb without ever taking a breath, until they emerge and take their first breath. Has it ever blown you away how people grow from babies into children and into fully formed adults, learning language and other skills along the way? It blows me away when I look at my own children and all that they’ve learned thus far, and that these are the same beings that I have known since they were infants. Or technically, every cell in their bodies has been replaced, but they are still the same people.
I don’t know that god is necessary for the miracle of life to exist, but I am blown away all the same. When i think of “life” or even “Life” (technically “LIFE”), the board game is not the first thing that comes to mind. Neither is the systematic process definition. I think of my kids, from their beginnings as a heartbeat on an ultrasound at eight weeks, to the marvelous people they are today. One day I’ll be gone and it scares me a little, but I hope what comes after this life is at least as good as this one has been. I don’t know. Neither do you. Neither does anybody, actually. That’s why we have these theories that try to make sense of things. Some find comfort in religion. Some find comfort in science. Some find comfort in philosophy. Some find comfort in family. I find some comfort in all of these things.
Thus endeth today’s witness.
I think that all religion is a product of our immaturity as individual people. Not as a species, necessarily - I don’t think people are really likely to get much smarter at a species level. The only significant difference is that there are fewer things around for which we have no better explanation - but that doesn’t seem to be slowing religion down as much as you’d think.
People in the past, and now, invent and believe in gods because they like knowing more about how things work. And, frankly, because they like things that sound good. Heaven forever? Sign us up! Bad things happen because the shadow government does it, not because of scary random chance? Sign us up! God gave us dominion over the earth and we can stripmine and burn to our hearts’ content? Sign us up!
I can construct a rather simple proof that any extremely powerful god is a serious deviant, actually. (Typhoons? Seriously?)
Sure.
However, I’m of the opinion that the alternative view that you are God is also a pretty poor reason to be good - and not just because I’d be an unholy tyrant if I were God. (Omnipotence? Me? Better take cover, y’alls - not that it’ll help!)
The best reason to be a good person is empathy. Not some shoddy form of empathy that requires a god to do your empathying for you - just plain old empathy.
Atheists don’t believe in gods; Theists do. Toggling between requires a person to change whether they believe in something or not.
I’m kind of not of the opinion that that’s the sort of thing that toggles, but you do you.
Of course you don’t agree with them! This thread wouldn’t exist if you agreed with them!
I have however put to bed the odd accusation that you’re the only person who’s contributed their ideas to this thread. We’ve all aired our pieces; it’s just that yours are the only definitions that actually matter, because your definitions are the ones under discussion.
Nope. None of this is shocking to me.
Now, if you dig into the science of it, it’s all quite complicated from a chemical, biological, and systemic viewpoint, that’s true. However I am not the sort of person to be blown away by complicated and intricate systems. That’s just me, though - I’m not wired that way.
Ship of Theseus, yo!
Sorry.
I actually do know what happens after you die - you decay. Or we’ll burn you first - depends on how you (and/or your family) roll.
Best enjoy things before that point, because you won’t be enjoying them after. (You won’t be suffering either, so that’s a plus.)
Yo.
You know what happens to you physically after you die, but what happens to your consciousness? Are you of the opinion that no body means no consciousness? I know this is normally a contentious point between religious people and non-religious people.
You become non-conscious…or are you confusing the consciousness with the “soul”?
What happened to your consciousness before you were born?
Like many physicalists, I consider the body to be essentially a juicy machine, and the brain to be a squishy computer. (With the notable difference that once it’s turned off once we’re not very good at turning it back on - particularly if you wait a while.)
So it’s useful to picture a computer that you turn on, let run for a while, and then turn off. (And to match reality, promptly dismantle.) Human minds are not the machine, but rather the software - the operating system and programs that run on it.
So, before you turned on your computer/phone, where was the browser window you’re looking at? What happens to it when the computer/phone shuts off?
Answer (and I’m a computer guy - I’d know): It simply doesn’t exist.