I think he’s trying to say that God is actually John Lennon.
And to expand further, it kinda fits, because Lennon was kind of an asshole, and the god lekatt describes sounds like an asshole.
(Dammit, I gotta go and dig out my Beatles CDs)
This probably won’t go well, but I’ll try…
If God is anything at all like anybody says it is, I can’t possibly comprehend it, because it can’t exist within the universe as I know it, and I can’t comprehend anything outside the universe. Arrogant as it is, I don’t believe anybody else can, either. Therefore, I don’t believe anything, positive or negative, that anybody says about God.
I do believe people who say there are really bad things about the world, and about people in it. It’s true. I can see it.
I also believe people who say there are truly wonderful things about the world, and about people in it. That’s true too, although sometimes harder to see.
I understand people who see the bad things and want to blame God for them.
I also understand people who see or feel good things, and try to express what they feel by talking about God.
I rather respect people who believe there is no God and trust Life and the Universe to be what it is, without any blame or expectation, and do what good they can anyway, and take the bad as it comes. I wish I could do that.
I have doubts about people with so little faith that they have to try to prove things about God, the Bible, or whatever. Although trying to prove things can be fun.
I’ve forgotten where I was going with this. Let’s see what happens next. How’s that for a cop-out?
It’s a fair cop-out.
Minor point - I can concieve of an entity existing outside the universe as we know it, abstractly and theoretically speaking. What can I say; I’m an imaginative guy. I don’t think there is such a being, but I can imagine it.
I think you may be slightly confused about the reason people try to prove things about god. If it’s atheists doing, it, then a lack of faith is hardly a criticism. If it’s theists doing it, they’re either trying to fend off those annoying atheists (which may or may not be a noble cause), and/or they’re genuinely trying to understand what they believe, which is hardly something to be criticized.
I think that many people who want to blame god for bad things are believers who have no choice but to blame him within the context of their belief system, since they believe that he is the creator and overseer of the world. I gather the problem of evil can be very troubling for such people. And of course, atheists who blame god for evil things are only doing so for the sake of argument, which would seem to be a fair way for them to pass the time. Arguing can be fun, after all.
Well, yes. But you don’t go so far as to believe what you imagine, do you? I mean, really rely on it? Some people seem to make that leap. And I guess even that’s OK, as far as it goes, if it helps one wrap one’s brain around a Big Question that empirical thought can’t answer. But then people set their beliefs up against other people’s beliefs, and the shouting starts, and then the shooting, and then somehow it just doesn’t seem like a good thing anymore. At least not to me.
I would be with you all the way on that, except theists seem to argue more among themselves than they do with atheists. And more violently, too. I’ll admit that the argument tends to be that the other guy is too theist, or not theist enough. Also I might cynically suspect that the religious argument sometimes comes after the fighting breaks out. Still, if someone can’t bear another person believing differently, that could suggest that someone is insecure about his or her own beliefs. So I have doubts, that’s all.
Heaven knows I’m not very secure. (If heaven, well, you know…)
I may have a good imagination, but even so you’re not going to catch me telling you that putting your faith in unsubstantiated belief is a good idea -even if the people who’ve done so aren’t shooting at the moment.
Curiously, the people who seem to get most vehement in the defense of their diety and religion tend, in my experience, to be those who assert that they’re surest about the truth of their beliefs. Perhaps its that they really at just a tiny bit less than perfectly faithful to their belief and they feel guilty about that, or maybe they feel all the more strongly that nonbelievers are an offense to their malevolent lord, I dunno, but they always seem to be much less tolerant than those who admit that they lack certainty in their beliefs and might, in fact, be completely wrong.
And for doubts, heck, I barely make the cut as an atheist; I’ve never been able to shake the notion that the christians are right, and that there’s a demonic god looming in wait, cackling maniacally over the suffering in the world, and chomping at the bit to horrifically torture anyone or anything that does not kiss its hooves sufficiently. Suffice to say, this is a troubling idea to be unable to dismiss. 
Ah, but how many in a tablespoon? 
Ignoring the lovely quote-editing antics for a bit, the posts on this topic are a pretty fair map of my slide from obedient Protestantism to agnostic Deism. Basically, there’s no real reason for a god who cares about his creations to go on ignoring their plight or, if Intelligent Design is to be believed, actively creating it.
So there are really two options:
-
God doesn’t care about his subjects, or actively hates them, or otherwise has a Grand Plan which involves lots of people suffering unjustly, or
-
God can’t help us or D.N.E.
Option 1 is frightens me beyond reasoning: either the Christian God has such a radically different set of values from his lowly human creations that there’s really no reason to worship him aside from blind, bullied fear… or God is completely indifferent or hateful towards us and our continued well-being. I also can’t believe in selective miracles, because, hey, if I can do nice things for people who think I’m scum, why can’t the creator of everything?
Option 2 is only barely better, in terms of well-reasoned godhood, but at least in the soap-opera case I can posit on the existence of a higher power without falling into a total despair. I mean, aren’t religions supposed to be comforting? 
Acourse, that still leaves the OT full of ancient jackassery, so… I’m guessing Jesus came all Luke Skywalker and overthrew his tyrant father, before closing the door on the whole Miracles and Massacres bag with a wave and a, “be good, guys!”
Also, hi~ Longlong time lurker, first time poster.
I agree there’s no solid evidence. Just some speculation. I just meant that if we start a discussion with, “If God exists then” we have to also assume a few other things. So, if god is eternal and our souls are as well then physical death can’t really be seen as an awful thing.
I meant eternal as a point from which to view all things rather than a time based reference. Uberfred sees and comprehends that complex web of cause and effect to a degree that we cannot because of our very limited vantage point.
It has occurred to me that I may be taking a more deistic stance. In this case, and per the OP, benevolent means that the higher ideals of love and truth are still at work and available to everyone. I think we plant the seeds to our briar patch and then wonder where that came from and why wouldn’t a loving god do something about it.
I do realize that the suffering of innocents is a hard thing to figure and I struggle with it too. More than once I’ve thought, “If there’s a purpose I sure as hell can’t see it”
The cool thing IMO is that aside from any spiritual speculation our options in the here and now are pretty much the same whether we are believer or non believer. We can choose to deal with events in the best way possible. That’s a common ground much more important than any speculation we might disagree on.
He can’t hold a candle to Fred and Uberfred.
Hmmmm, Church of the Universal Fred, or, Church of the Divine Fred, I like it.
Funny you should mention that-because this “Seth” guy sounds like the Force.
Too bad; you might learn something. Open your mind, dude.
As already noted, playing games with the text of another member’s post is a direct violation of the rules. The appropriate response to being challenged for having broken that rule is an apology, not more word games or snide insults while you pretend that you have done nothing wrong.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
If you had bothered to read the text you would see I touched nothing in his text, only put my post within the quotes accidentally. I won’t post anymore in this thread so you won’t have to close it.
You were asked if that had been an accident and instead of responding or clarifying, you simply made an insulting remark. This thread is not in danger of being closed, but your behavior is not acceptable.
The way I did it was to say: if God exists, and if he has these characteristics, then what would we expect the world to be like? In no case did I come up with a god who matched the world - except for the deistic one. And since I default to no god, I see no reason to believe in a god who gives no evidence of his existence by definition.
Physical death isn’t even an awful thing if you don’t believe in an afterlife. What’s wrong with nothing? I kind of prefer it to either being made different mentally - what’s the use of a life (or death) of total satisfaction? - or being kept away from the ones I love. I’ll take nothingness. What’s at issue is how to get there. My adviser died in his sleep, not bad. My wife’s grandfather got up from his hospital bed to go to the bathroom and fell over dead. Also not bad. Drowning, or falling from an airplane - not so hot.
The time someone gets waterboarded is insignificant relative to his full life. That doesn’t make it any better.
Certainly some pain is of our own making, and might exist even with a benevolent god. How much is a different discussion. Some we have nothing to do with. That’s the natural evil part.
Not to say “evil,” but what I find really distressing is the idea of a life not full, except full of pain. Take erythromelalgia, which I gather is caused by a flawed calcium channel gene (the seventh of nine, actually) in one’s basal cell ganglia that causes nociceptors (pain receptors) to stick “on.” In other words, the person is in constant, severe pain, sometimes from birth (or maybe before, I don’t know). The disease tends to end in death by suicide.
Not only that, but nobody really believes the kid is in pain as he or she is growing up.
Given that, given the fact that we can be miserable and yet nobody seems to care, the idea of a loving God is seductive. Being hopeless and alone doesn’t seem so bad if you can believe that you’re part of a plan, however incomprehensible, and that something out there cares when nobody around you does.
And it’s not just seductive if you’re in pain. The idea of a loving God takes the load off the rest of us. For me it’s usually hard just to think about people I know who are going through a rough spot. Yet every day I see strangers who seem hopeless and alone in one of the most prosperous societies on Earth, and I can’t find the energy to help. If I dare to think about the uncared-for masses who are piling up like cordwood around the world, well, it’s overwhelming.
Given all that, I really wish there were a loving God to at least care about all those people. But I don’t think there is. I think it’s just us. So I try to care as much as I can, try to do what little I can (which seems precious little), and hope others will do the same; not just because they think God wants them to or, I hate to say it, because there’s a buck to be had in the aid business, but because they care.
I have a question for lekatt: you talk about keeping an open mind. Have you ever consider the possibility, or ever thought that you might be wrong?
Just curious.
Sure I am wrong, about posting again for instance, but when it is my opinion or belief I say that it is. If it is something I have personally experienced and experienced more than once, even continually, then I know. That includes knowing humans are spiritual beings.
[QUOTE=“So, Mr. Jehovah… you admit that because of your negligence, millions of people have experienced horrible tragedy, pain, suffering, disease, and loss?”
“Yep.”
“And you admit that while you had the power to step in and stop it at any time, you instead stood idly by and watched it happen? Or simply ignored it?”
“Yeah, that’s right.”
“And despite your willfully permitting all that monumental pain and suffering in a world you created, much of it on people innocent of any wrongdoing, you still consider yourself a just and loving God?”
“Well, sure. I mean, I make sure everybody dies eventually.”
“No further questions, your honor.”[/QUOTE]
Ok, there are a lot of people claiming that there can be no just God because suffering exists. That an omnipotent God, if he exists must take responsibility for the actions of everyone else.
That, therefore, he should never have given anyone free will or the ability to think for themselves. That he should force peace and tranquility on everyone. That he should never let people see the consequences of their own, or others, actions.
Some one tell me, would you as a parent, while trying to raise a well adjusted child, (we’ll assume that’s what you’re trying to do,) keep every trace of pain and suffering from them? Would you keep them from ever seeing the consequences of their actions? And never let them see the consequences of other peoples actions? Would you deny them the ability to learn that people’s actions can cause suffering?
And wouldn’t you be a wonderful parent, because that’s the way to raise a healthy, respectful, considerate… Wait a minute!!! No it’s not. That’s the way to raise a spoiled brat with no consideration for others who thinks the world owes them. That’s the way to raise someone who would cause untold suffering due to their callous actions. (oh, except, of course, a “benevolent” god would never allow those actions to cause anyone else suffering.)
Has no one ever suggested to you that suffering is necessary for growth? No human invention would ever take place, because every single one is the result of someone trying to fulfill a desire. No one would ever need compassion unless someone was suffering. No one would ever develop compassion unless someone was suffering.
And as others have done, you are conveniently ignoring the problem of natural evil.
No, he should have done a better design job. The main reason that civilization and modern technology exists is to improve on the natural state of human life. So, your God is either unable or unwilling to match our own efforts. Much less exceed them.
Our instincts our not those that a being trying to create a civilized species would build into us. We have to put so much work into it because it’s unnatural for us. A decent God would at least have made “decent human being” our default state. He could have done that, made us better people, and we’d still be just as free as we are now.
And an omnipotent God - or for that, a god that merely matched our own power - could have plopped us down in a technological society with the knowledge we needed to run it. Not as primitives scrabbling to survive.
Parents are not gods. They can’t construct their children to feel less, or no suffering. Nor can they reorder the universe so as to cause less or no suffering.
But in a world of no suffering, there would be no such consequences to observe. Are you a bad parent that you don’t let your children see the terrible consequences of groobling ?
If you are a God, the way to do that is to build them that way.
Which does not require suffering.
So ? Do you realize that you’ve virtually redefined compassion into a motive for malice ? God inflicted evil on the world so we could feel sorry for the victims ? How is that NOT an “unloving, unfair, unjust” God ?
Re: What would an unloving, unjust, unfair God be like?
