# There is no god.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406 "2004-08-05T04:19:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/61 "2004-08-06T06:35:22Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Why? What’s your job? I’m curious! > Is it ironic that you make this comment in a thread titled “there is no god . . .” and opened to allow a poster to articulate a specifically _andi_-Christian viewpoint? Well I was a former youth pastor. I’ve been retying myself to the Church, recently. This particular topic was making this guys blood boil a bit. I’m so ashamed of these people who proclaim themselves to be Christians, and yet you see how intolerant they seem to be. I simply had to put in my humble word as a man of God. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/62 "2004-08-06T06:42:41Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > No, they wandered for the extra 40 years so that the ones who doubted that God could give them the promised land would die off (Those who were age 20 and older). It just so happened that all the original slaves were included in that lot, save two. > > They doubted even though they were liberated from Egypt, fed manna and quail through the desert, and received water from rock. So yes, when push came to shove and it was time for the Israelites to actually do something, they rejected the God’s gift of the promised land. This was a generation that had witnessed some of the most powerful displays of celestial power and still rejected Him. Some of the interpretations I’ve read say that their life as slaves made them unfit for the invasion and the trust, so I think we’re actually in agreement. Nevertheless, the Pesach story as told today does not condemn the former slaves at all. Denial of god is a very Christian concept. God is too evident in the Torah to be denied. The slaves come across as timid and fearful, never knowing where the next miracle is coming from, and easily swayed (just like slaves) but not really in denial of god’s existence. They kind of suffered from post-Exodus shock disorder. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/63 "2004-08-06T11:19:27Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > And that is why the objections raised by you and **Meatros** hold no water. You can’t insist that God must be beholden to the laws of physics, and then use this _assumption_ to demonstrate that he does not exist. You are arguing from an unsubstantiated assumption, which makes your contention logical fallacious. I’m not insisting much of anything-perhaps a bit of clarity- but saying that God transcends physical reality doesn’t make much sense in my mind. You assertions that it’s beside the point of how this is possible (or how God could create from this nonphysical POV) are precisely the point in my mind. Saying God is nonphysical doesn’t make sense to me for precisely this reason. > [@JThunder](#): > > One can raise all sorts of questions about what it would mean for God to transcend physical laws, but that is ultimately irrelevant. The burden of proof rests on you to show that he is indeed enslaved to the very rules that he created. Your failure (and mine) to understand how this might happen does not make it either impossible or implausible. Actually the onus is still on you. You are making the claim that God transcends physical laws, not I. I’m not making any claims at all about God. I’m asking you to clarify what you mean when you say God is outside the physical. The concept doesn’t make much sense to me. I could be totally off, but I see your argument as follows: God isn’t bound to natural laws because he’s _flopper flan_. You are claiming he’s entirely physical or has to be bound by physical laws, so you have to prove that he’s not _flopper flan_. The fact of the matter is, I’m just trying to understand what you mean by outside the physical. I mean, just saying God is outside the physical doesn’t help. Nor does saying that he has to be because he created the universe (why would this be the case?). It seems like a convient answer to get around tricker problems-no offense. Like I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t know and I’m not even claiming you are wrong-I’m just trying to understand your point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/64 "2004-08-06T11:26:07Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I could be totally off, but I see your argument as follows: “God isn’t bound to natural laws because he’s _flopper flan_. You are claiming he’s entirely physical or has to be bound by physical laws, so you have to prove that he’s not _flopper flan_.” Just to clarify, I’ve added quotes to the above. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/65 "2004-08-06T11:40:28Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Fair enough, perhaps I overestimated the miracles I remember occuring when I read the Bible (which was quite a while ago). In any event, my puzzlement remains as to why the no show, so to speak. > > If God doesn’t send people to Hell, or punish them for nonbelief, then I understand the no show (and it’s possible that such a God does this): However if God does send people to Hell, then why all the other religions? Why the confusion of the message? > > Perhaps it’s the idea of punishment/Hell that doesn’t sit right with me, in regards to an eternally good being. In fairness to you, that’s something that a lot of people don’t seem to catch from Jesus’ ministry even though, if you were to read His teachings, it’s completely obvious. “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.” — Jesus (John 5:22) That’s quite a startling revelation, and quite unequivocal. There is no one whom the Father judges — _no one_. Instead, the Father has entrusted judgment (moral judgment, of course) to the Son. Just to make sure the concept is crystal clear, He reiterates a few verses later: “And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” — Jesus (John 5:27) Therefore, whenever people like Fred Phelps prattle on and on about God’s judgment, they are ignoring what Jesus Himself has said. The Father judges simply doesn’t judge anyone. But what about the Son? The Father has waived His right to judge and given that right to His Son. What exactly is the Son’s judgment then? The answer is another shocker: “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” — Jesus (John 8:15) I can’t imagine it being any more clear. The Son passes judgment on precisely nobody. So… God judges no one, but has given authority for judgment to the Son. And now we find that Son has decided He doesn’t want to judge anyone either. (Which makes sense since the Father and the Son are one.) Once again, He reiterates to make sure He is heard: “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.” — Jesus (John 12:47) Therefore, Phelps and company are lying when they say that God judges us or that Christ judges us. So then, who is to judge us? One more surprise: turns out, _we_ are to judge _ourselves_ by His objective standard. “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will judge him at the last day.” — Jesus (John 12:48) (Note that the NIV uses “will condemn him” rather than “will judge him”, but the NIV is wrong. The word derives from the Greek [[symbol]krino[/symbol]](http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1091786826-8721.html), which means to select, to separate, or to judge.) Thus, God is merely God. He is not picking people to be on His team. Rather, He is standing still, presenting Himself as He is. And it is we who determine whether we like what we see and want to be with Him. It is our decision — and our decision alone — when we see Him face to face (“the last day”) whether He is something we like, or something we would just as soon do without. One man’s heaven is another man’s hell, after all. God is not a judge. He is merely Love: the Great Facilitator of His favorite aesthetic — goodness. CS Lewis once said that God values goodness so much that, were there another being more good than He, He would worship it. Whoever loves goodness will love God. You might be surprised at how many people hate goodness and love evil. But what is goodness? It isn’t what Phelps and company say. After all, we already know that they are idiots because they cannot rightly interpret a very plain and simple set of statements. Goodness has nothing to do with such things as whether you put a penis in your mouth. Goodness has to do with building up. Goodness edifies. It soothes, heals, and teaches. To be good to another person is to make him feel good about himself and others around him. That is why whenever I’m mean and sarcastic in the Pit, I am doing evil — I’m making people feel bad about themselves. I’m tearing down instead of building up. Destroying instead of creating. If love is the facilitation of goodness, then sin is the obstruction of it. Love and sin are opposites. Therefore, putting a penis in your mouth can actually be an act of moral goodness if it is an expression of love. God loves goodness because it creates. But there are men who love destruction more than creation. That is the criterion by which they will judge themselves. They will, of their own free will and volition, decide to turn their backs on God because He is the ultimate obstacle to their pleasure. Wherever He is, nothing can be torn down or destroyed. All He does is give them exactly what they ask for, namely, to leave them alone. It is not that God sends them to hell because they are evil; it is that they _choose_ hell because they _love_ evil. They love to destroy. If God were to force them to be with Him, they would be like pigs at a banquet, wreaking havoc and destroying the table in order to sop up the food. Thankfully for those who love creation, God does not force people to be with Him. I’m often called crazy for saying that the atoms are not real. Some people who defend me even think I mean it figuratively rather than literally, but I do not. That is not to say that the universe has no significance of any kind, but merely that it has no intrinsic _moral_ significance. There are no morality particles. The atoms do nothing but form a temporary setting that serves as scenery for man to decide whether he loves creation or destruction — light or darkness, goodness or evil. He treats the atoms exactly as he would treat a living spirit. They give him a context in which he can make moral decisions. Say that a man sees a little old lady standing at a street corner. As a human body, she is nothing more than atoms, just like the lampost beside her. But as a moral agent, she is a spirit, and the man who sees her is likewise a dual creature — a bag of mostly water and a piece of God with his own free will. It is his spirit that will make the moral decision about the old woman, and his brain that will carry it out. Will he mug her? Will he rape her? Will he snatch her purse? Or will he be kind to her? Will he help her to cross the street? Perhaps he will be indifferent, ignoring her and looking away, too busy with his own affairs to consider her plight. These are moral judgments. The atoms that form the material woman, the street, and the man are not morally significant. Significance is assigned by the decision of the man’s essense — his spirit. God is not about material; He is about morality. Jesus taught plainly also about the dual nature of man. Consider now this exchange between Jesus and an influential Rabbi of the day, Nicodemus. You’ve probably seen it before, but maybe now you’ll see it in a new light. John 3:1-12… > [@](#): > > Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” > > In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” > > “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” > > Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” > > “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. > > “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? Man is born first of the water from his mother’s womb. But to be one with God, he must be born of spirit — _God’s_ spirit. That is, he must accept God’s love. Remember, love is the exchange of goodness from one moral agent to another. A man is born again when he opens his heart and allows God to fill him with goodness, to edify him, to build him up, to make him feel good about himself. And because he is now filled with goodness, he will turn around and do the same for his fellow man, thus fulfilling Jesus’ instruction to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. That’s why Jesus said that the second commandment is no less great than the first. Your love for your neighbor is a _manifestation_ of your love for God. It is impossible to do either without the other. And, of course, it is how Jesus said that those who follow Him may be recognised: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” — Jesus (John 13:34-35) Note that here, we are not talking about love “the emotion”, but about love “the moral decision” — the decision to be charitable, kind, and edifying. _American Heritage_ gives many definitions for love, and so it is important not to equivocate. The emotion is nothing but synaptic discharges and hormonal floods. But the moral decision is born of the spirit. Anyway, that’s my interpretation of it. It seems plain and simple to me. “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8 ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/66 "2004-08-06T14:37:48Z")
> [@Sinful](#): > > Well I was a former youth pastor. I’ve been retying myself to the Church, recently. > > This particular topic was making this guys blood boil a bit. I’m so ashamed of these people who proclaim themselves to be Christians, and yet you see how intolerant they seem to be. I simply had to put in my humble word as a man of God. What are you talking about? We Doper Christians have been pretty darned well-behaved in this discussion, almost the best I’ve seen (even tho Polycarp & Siege haven’t yet shown up & raised the bar for us). Btw, the Doper Skeptics have been pretty cool also. ---
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406/67 "2004-08-06T19:38:41Z")
> [@ericboyd](#): > > Take one notion; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was sent to Earth to die for the sins of humankind. Some Christians believe that the only way to gain eternal life is to confess Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Yet those same Christians teach that the sacrifice of the Son of God is so powerful that it washes away the sins of the world and there is no act a human could perform to earn that salvation. > > This is a profound contradiction; to say there is nothing we can do to earn salvation, but we must adopt a certain belief system to obtain it. > …If it doesn’t, I’m sure God won’t hold it against you. Therein lies the conflict I’ve had with my Church for many years now. > [@FriarTed](#): > > What are you talking about? We Doper Christians have been pretty darned well-behaved in this discussion, almost the best I’ve seen (even tho Polycarp & Siege haven’t yet shown up & raised the bar for us). Btw, the Doper Skeptics have been pretty cool also. Some of you rankle against **GC** for his base beliefs when you were told what they were, but I happen to know one thing he/she failed to mention, which I usually bring up in such discussions and that is this: Who cares what your beliefs are. If there _is_ a God, and he’s as he should be, you’ll go to Heaven no matter what if your are basically a good person. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god/258406.md?page=3)