No, God is Love, and we, created in His image are also love. Love is all that does matter. We are in the physical plane learning about love. One can not know what love is, without knowing what love isn’t, our bodies shield us from who we are for the sake of learning until we gain knowledge to look within and discover the truth.
Conditions work both ways, mon ami. If I unconditionally love someone, it means that i’ll love them no matter what they do; but likewise it means i’ll love them no matter what *I * do. So in fact I and they can do anything they want if love is totally unconditional. It would mean nothing. And in fact because unconditional would mean you can’t unchoose it, it impugns free will. So really, you’d be giving up a reasonable portion of free will and gaining nothing.
I’ll stick with my conditional love, thanks. It may be a “contract”, but then i’m pretty happy to say I probably wouldn’t love a mass murderer. I bow to your superior principles if not actions.
Maybe it doesn’t seem like there’s any concept that ought to be beyond humanity, but that hardly proves that there isn’t any such concept. Humans have no reliable way of listing all the concepts that exist, or even of obtaining a crude estimate of how many exist. Hence one surely must admit that it’s possible for there to be concepts beyond the grasp of the human mind.
(I’d also suggest that your desire for “a whole lot of diagrams” to explain any concept betrays a certain lack of imagination. The most important things in life can’t be explained in diagrams: love, justice, truth, honor, and so forth.)
It’s worth remembering that humans have been sure they were approaching the sum of all knowledge before. In the late 1800’s, many intelligent people were convinced that science had uncovered all useful knowledge and there was almost nothing left to learn. They even advised young folks to not pursue studies in chemistry or physics because there would shortly be no need for researchers in those fields. They were wrong, of course. There were entire fields of scientific knowledge waiting to be explored. But things like quantum physics and computer science couldn’t even be imagined until a certain amount of intellectual background was in place.
Wrong again, if you harm someone you are not showing love.
You can choose to love or not to love, your logic is faulty all over. It is not nice to make it up as you go along.
There is no conventional love, all love is either unconditional or merely a contract. I will do something (favors) for you if you do something for me (favors), which is not love.
Love is God’s realm, usually not understood by those without experience.
O.K., let’s not hijack this thread any longer.
I don’t know if you’ve been following my dialogue with cosmosdan, but I’m already disagreeing with him on this point and so, I might as well disagree with you too. 
What does my inability to reliably enumerate “all concepts that exist” have to do with my potential ability to understand any specific concept in existence? I’d love to ask for an example of a concept that could potentially be beyond the grasp of the human mind, but that doesn’t really seem fair as conceiving of such a thing would be rather difficult.
Yeah, the “diagrams” remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek. As I’ve alluded to earlier in this thread, God knows everything about the way you learn and understands the best way to explain things to you. You may consider “a diagram” to be a metaphor for any necessary teaching aid.
I’m not sure what this has to do with it. I don’t recall saying that humanity knows everything. I *do * recall saying that humanity ought to be able to learn anything, and therefore, I feel the claim that God can’t explain anything in particular because humans lack the ability to understand is a cop-out.
I wasn’t fond of that analogy but I think it’s realistic to consider that there are things we are not ready to comprehend yet, but can comprehend through persistent sincere effort.
If we are designed to be able to comprehend through effort then it’s not about ability or design flaw right?
Yes but you’re again trying to make an argument that is not germane to my point. (Unless you believe a cat, through persistent sincere effort, can acquire human-like knowledge and/or understand our motivations.) I’m not too interested in arguments that rely on free will.
ok, I just think that was kinda the point of the analogy in question.
This one … that talks about “knowledge” and “can’t conceive” and doesn’t refer to choice at all?
Were you not including yourself in “humans”? I’m not a fan, but I wouldn’t go *that * far.
Anyway; if I shoot someone, do they know how to fire and operate a gun?
Imagine that you convince, for example, Christopher Hitchens that your god exists. He is, like you, now a happy, happy man. Alas, he no longer can get pots of money for his books/appearances/so forth talking about athiesm. And of course you’ve upset his pride, which i’m sure he’d eventually get over. You’ve helped him reach God; you’ve harmed him by causing him money problems and a hit to his pride.
Logically, since you have harmed him, spreading the word to him is not an act of love. And since you follow love, you should not do it. Logically, you shouldn’t be attempting to convince people you’re right. Silly, isn’t it? Were I in your position, i’d certainly consider spreading the word a good thing; so perhaps you’d better re-examine your definition.
I think you misunderstand. My logic isn’t faulty, from your point of view; from your point of view certainly my **premises ** may be wrong. I don’t think i’ve made any errors of logic, but point them out if you spot any specific ones.
Why would God make himself beyond the human grasp?
I would argue that if his nature is beyond our grasp, then it is because he has made it so, and thus it is his will that we do not know him… yet. More importantly, we can’t draw a line from “understood totally” to “not understood at all” and pick out the point where we’re at. If it is accepted that we don’t know everything, logically it is possible we know nothing. And if it is possible that we know nothing, then logically God must want us to accept the possibility that we know nothing about him; I am uncertain why he would specifically want such a high level of doubt when he apparently wants to be known.
only because it’s talking about a fixed point in time. Before I start studying quantum physics I can’t conceive of all it contains. When I choose to pursue it my ability to comprehend grows step by step as I study.
The analogy is flawed as I said, but I think that is what it is speaking to in regard to man’s ability to comprehend God.
If you truly believe that is what the analogy is about then you must also believe that through a cat’s persistent sincere effort it can understand human motivations. Because that is what the analogy is. The only question of choice is the one you alone have imposed on it - no doubt because it allows you to use your magic free will wand.
It sounds like you’re agreeing with the step by step process I described. If you acknowledge that then it seems logical that if you started teaching by going to the final step or principle instead of starting at the beginning that principle would seem incomprehensible to the person you were trying to teach. You can teach a human anything but you have to follow the some progression of learning. right?
IMO that means it’s not unreasonable or illogical or a poor excuse to say “There are things we just don’t comprehend yet” That applies to science as well as God. It’s not an excuse. Simply an observation.
I don’t get your point here. If we acknowledge that gaining knowledge is a step by step process then how a “student” progresses is determined in part by their desire to learn, their dedication, discipline, etc. IOW their choices. If you try to teach and they don’t study the whole process is altered by the students choice.
And I truly don’t understand what is so hard to understand. Do you teach a kid to tie his shoes by constantly doing it for him. If the purpose is for us to grow and mature then we have to make the effort even if it isn’t easy. When I taught my son to swim he was scared and lacked the faith that he could indeed learn how. Flailing about underwater and swallowing water was such an unpleasant experience he was reluctant to even try. It seemed an insurmountable task.
Son, :“Hey Dad! Why don’t you do something about me not being able to swim”
I don’t see why that principle is hard to understand.
It seems to me that your determination to find god belief foolish prompts you to reject valid arguments. You can say that the fact that human suffering is so great and the lack of evidence for an benevolent God leads you to the conclusion of “There is no God” I have no problem with that being an honest opinion. That’s all it is. The arguments here presented here for lack of belief are not superior logic and obvious and believing otherwise is not foolish. I entered the thread to make that point.
There’s a Bible passage that deals directly with that. If you meet someone who’s hungry don’t just say “God bless you” and leave him hungry. I’ve already said that working to stop human suffering is part of the job but I’m sure you’re aware that lines must be drawn. At some point you have to insist that people bare the consequences of their actions so they actually learn to make better choices. At some point when you keep helping someone who is able to help themselves you’re impeding their growth. Isn’t that correct?
I do not present it as cavalierly as you suggest. Physical death is a reality we face. I stood at my father’s bedside and watched him die. It was incredibly hard and painful but I did grow. It helped me deal with the reality of physical death and be less afraid of loss. It helped me to put other things in life in perspective. It’s reality. Maybe I should have run out of the room and left him alone because it was hard? Is that what you’re suggesting?
So, are there no principles worth suffering for? Are there no causes worth dieing for? Would we risk our physical safety for others? Why? Isn’t it because we think some things are more important than our physical beings?
Personally I don’t think it’s about some future eternal reward. Let the goal be to do the best we can to alleviate human suffering and to make the most of not only our quality of life but the lives of our fellow beings. I think that’s a worthy goal whether or not a person believes is a deity. IMO that’s where the rubber meets the road for believers and non believers. There day to day actions.
So what? That’s just another phrase describing what we’ve been discussing. It’s very reasonable and logical to believe there are things we don’t comprehend.
Your previous comment was that you thought if God were real he should do more and if you had the power and knowledge you’d help people out.
I’m saying we can do more and the desire and the effort and the work itself is part of the purpose of our being here. Just as my son is my genetic offspring we are God’s spiritual children, made of the same stuff. I want my son to become a responsible adult and my equal even though he’ll never stop being my son. In order for that to happen I have to let him make his own choices and experience the consequences. It’s in the *doing *he becomes the person he is. Not just my advice.
In which I surrender…
cosmosdan, while it has been interesting, I think it is time for me declare our arrival at the proverbial impasse that must necessarily mark the end of any religious debate and extricate myself from the thread. Perhaps, as you say, my “determination to find god belief foolish prompts [me] to reject valid arguments.” I don’t think so, but I’ll allow it as a possibility. I’ll also suggest the possibility that perhaps your determination to validate god belief prompts you to occasionally eschew common sense for the sake of rationalizing the incomprehensible.
I find it ironic that I, as an atheist, argue the perspective of an omniscient, omnipotent God while you, the theist (I assume), seem to argue the case for an imperfect, limited, and somewhat ineffectual God. I’m talking about a God who can poof(!) the universe into existence. You’re talking about a God who needs to contrive a bizarre system in which suffering (physical, psychological, and philosophical) is requisite for His very creation to reach some vaguely defined plateau of enlightenment over the course of one hundred years (if you’re lucky) before possibly going on to Eternity and whatever that entails.
Personally, I find that even the most innocuous religious propositions raise enough unanswerable questions to gag a sphinx and yet, I can’t stop chatting about this stuff with people. I don’t know if it’s Christ or not… but the power of something certainly compels me.
All the best.
No; that most certainly is not what the analogy is. I’ve already said the analogy is flawed and that is the flaw. If you don’t see that or don’t agree that’s fine.
Fair enough friend. I appreciate the time you’ve put in. In my experience people’s belief systems are made up in part of their emotional attachment to certain concepts. I’ve seen this in believers who embrace a belief in the face of clear and ample evidence against. I’ve seen it in myself as I studied and reluctantly surrendered old beliefs. It’s an interesting phenomenon. I’ve also noticed the same thing in non believers. Not intended as an insult or accusation I’ve just noticed that non believers tend to just assume that their arguments are based on logic and reason so they must be better since believers are obviously illogical.
For example. In your last post you say
as if the loss of our physical life is an act of unforgivable cruelty by God{if he exists} Yet, if God is, then physical death is only one experience from which we continue on, possibly to paradise. In that case, logically speaking, physical death is not an act of cruelty and cannot logically be used as an example of God’s cruelty.
No I’m not. I’m saying that the standard atheist arguments for non belief often mix human and time line standards with an eternal spiritual being and pretty regularly don’t make sense. It’s like saying “obviously oranges can’t really exist because apples are red” I’m also saying that when guessing about what God ought to do or ought to be like toward humanity we must consider what the goal or purpose might be before we decide if it makes sense or not. If the purpose is for us to learn and grow by our choices and experiences , then that changes what we should expect our relationship to God to be and what we would consider benevolent. If I want my kids to grow up to be responsible adults it is not an act of love to rescue them from every bad experience. It is an act of control.
No, supposing what God needs is not even a consideration. It’s more a matter of what is, and why is it? Perhaps we, as a part of God, agreed to come an experience physical human life knowing that we would eventually return our spiritual lives. I don’t know. Neither do you. I’m only pointing out certain atheist arguments smugly considered logical and obvious are neither, if considered under other reasonable perspectives.
Ha, I know what you mean. I enjoy discussing these things because when I’m challenged it helps me to question my own beliefs and in defending them I always learn something about myself. It also helps me understand the views of others which I think is important for useful communication. In that spirit, thanks for your participation
I’ve been following this thread from the first and I just have to say it’s refreshing to see that there are still human beings left on the planet that can and do discuss things with what seems to be a genuine interest in increasing understanding through sincere attempts at clear communication of disparate beliefs. Almost makes a person want to believe in god. Almost, but not quite for me. 
As a former Xian myself, I’ve got a question for cosmosdan (I used to perceive things the way you seem to, from what I can tell, and no longer do – either because I’m backslidden and/or now ‘smug’ from the Xian perspective, or because I’m not ‘brainwashed’ anymore from some ex-believer’s perspectives). Nonetheless, I find your explanation of that perspective to be very coherent.
So here’s my question (though I’m torn as to whether this should be a new thread since the posts have started to get a little removed, in my view, from the original question of whether or not god’s lack of making himself plain is reasonable evidence of his non-existence): Do you believe your god is omnipotent?
Here’s what I mean by the question:
This parent/child analogy seems to be one that you’re pretty attached to as a reasonable way to explain the nature of god as you posit it/him. I know that it was always employed my Xians when I was growing up, so I don’t have much of a difficulty with the concept; and I think it’s an excellent one to employ even secularly insofar as teach a man to fish, etc. type of things. I also think most people would have to agree, from human experience, that there is something more to ideal interactions with other humans than to just help or not help; whole philosophies, obviously, are borne out of this concern like Ayn Rand’s, for example.
But one of the things that, as I read it, seems to be a sticking point of several of the ‘non-believers’ that have posted earlier is their contention that god, were he truly omnipotent, could create a reality in which the universe didn’t work that way.
We were taught, by the way, that god isn’t omnipotent in the strict sense of the word; that he operates “within” a universe that has its own realities (such as the teach a fish thing, parent/child analogue matrix for how people grow, etc.) that he couldn’t change even if he wanted to and within which he has to operate; hence the death of jesus is a “winning the game within the existing rules” type of thing, given that one of the rules is that sin leads to death.
The fact that sin leads to death was taught to us as an immutable fact and reality of the universe over which god has no control.
The only other option, it seems, is to say that god is playing within these rules because he wants to (if he’s omnipotent) for some greater end or purpose as some would say is explained in the bible, or as you posited about coming to earth to live as human for a while, etc.
So – do you think god is **able **to change the matrix of the universe so that humans, for example, don’t have to learn by growing and striving, having faith, etc. in the first place?
And, just so we don’t get sidetracked and I’m not misunderstood, I’m not talking about violating current free will as it exists by forcing a change in man’s existing nature with an omnipotent imposition of force; I’m talking about having designed the entire universe in the first place differently.
Do you think he created free will and the universe, or operates within its constraints?
I am very much human with all the human faults and frailities.
No, I don’t think the act of shooting someone would impart any knowledge to them about the gun, however, they might learn to duck faster.
If I should be instrumental in pointing out the discovery of God and self to someone they would not be displeased about losing extra income. In the spirit world money and material things are not looked upon as a viable goal. If you read about those who have near death experiences you will find many of them changing jobs to help others, not caring about the kind of money they make. Money is only needed to the extent of personal use.
God is not beyond human grasp, but most look for God in the wrong places. (Sounds like a song title.) I will post this again, it is not large:
In order to find God you must find yourself, it is not that hard. Who are you? I posted earlier the method, but not sure if it was this thread. Finding yourself is the goal of physical life. Other people are like mirrors to us so we may see ourselves in them. This is a school of spiritual growth, we all play a part in it. We agreed to do this, accepted the challenge from the spiritual realms in which we were born. All children must grow and learn, we are not created with full spiritual maturity. God does want us to learn and grow, to observe, to be aware, to be curious, and finally to be as He is.
As for a scale of some kind, yes, that would help. So when I became aware of my spirit guide I asked him “on a scale of one to ten, where am I in spiritual growth.” He answered “three”. Understand this is a made up scale, for purposes of curiosity. He said this planet earth is a three planet, people come here as threes and hopefully gain some spiritual growth. Almost twenty years later I asked again and was told I was a seven. The numbers are not important because there is no time limit, you are eternal.
This is lunacy. The analogy is humans “can’t conceive” God’s knowledge and motivations for remaining elusive just as cats “can’t conceive” human knowledge and motivations. There is no reference to choice in the analogy. It is a flat out, unasterisked “can’t”. That is the flaw you see in it. You want to talk about choice so you graft it in a futile attempt to rehabilitate the analogy.
However, grafting choice onto the analogy is problematic. If you introduce the idea that humans can understand God if they really, really want to on one side of the equation then you must do so on the other as well. Failure to do that destroys all analogic value. You’d be better off rejecting the analogy and starting over since adding choice it to both side would mean you think cat’s could understand humans if only they really, really wanted to. What you are doing is either intellectual dishonesty or lunacy.