fundamental suppositions of God that are absurd

[_huckelberry]

Risking Dr W disapproval I will consider the possibility of God as objectively live and well. I suspect God does not speak to people who claim to be his mouthpiece. God instead communicates the fundamentals of what God wishes and cares about to every human who is born and alive. We all are capable of understanding giving care and respect to our neighbors as an expression of gratitude for the value of human life. (not that we always do that)

I think because God gave us all the basic starting place to think about faith and gave us the mind and heart to think with we should put that to good use. It is possible that an atheism which through thought discovers how to care is a truer faith than unquestioned beliefs that fail to help us understand others.

Using my God ordained ability to think I find some descriptions of the atonement revolting. Despite bad descriptions I see that the atonement is something meaningful to individuals who wish to share forgiveness with others and are willing to suffer in the efforts to heal the injuries others experience.We all do that for those we love, well if there are such people. Those who think the atonement is payment for a fancy cleanser to polish their self image find it empty. It is possible that the atonement has nothing to do with them.

[_ludwigm]

I think they mangled the message because there is no god, just men. Some deluded, some knowingly spinning tales, some a mixture of both. Spouting gibberish for a variety of reasons, none of which are because god is really talking to them. That is why the message is mangled, because in the end, there is no message.

Did You steal my sig line? I should set it copyrighted.

[_Gunnar]

Some one (I don't remember who) once said (paraphrasing, not an exact quote) that if someone believes you made them think, they will praise you and be grateful to you forever, but if you actually do get them to think, they will never forgive you. I think this is too often true of many.

This is awesome! Thanks for posting it, Gunnar.

You're more than welcome, but I can't really take credit for it. I'm not the originator of it.

[_Bazooka]

DrW, how have you come to the conclusion that any God is such a product?

How did you come to the idea that some Gods are real? You have admitted to no real evidence, and that you believe only because you don't like the idea of a universe with no God. You have made assumptions from the beginning to end. It's pointless and in the end you believe what ever you like. I suggest Dr. W is being reasonable and not believing things for which there is a major lack of evidence. Why would this assumed Good God not provide him with the necessary knowledge he exists and what he wants?

Kevin believes in God because he doesn't like the alternative, not because he believes in God.
That's like buying a Ford solely because Cadillacs aren't pretty, rather than because he likes Fords.

[_DrW]

Sethbag, those are a good set of criticism to my mind. I am aware that each has been promoted by people. As a believer in God I see these suppositions to be about God not of God.

Once one comes to the realization that God - any god - is a pure product of the human mind, and nothing more, the suppositions listed by Sethbag's human mind do indeed become the suppositions of God.

DrW, how have you come to the conclusion that any God is such a product? I can see how you might come to the conclusion that most deities are, but saying that any deity is is saying that the idea of God itself has inherent problems, and I don't think that's been demonstrated yet. In fact, I'm not entirely sure anybody's defined God yet; how can a concept have inherent problems when nobody's defined what it means?

Kevin,

Why do you think it is (in your mind, at least) that "God" has not been adequately defined? If you think about it, such a claim in itself should be good evidence that God is purely a product of the human mind.

Why is it that God remains so ill defined in your mind?

Could it be that your mind is still in the process of constructing a God with which it (you) can be comfortable?

Do the stark differences between the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New Testament, and the God of Joseph Smith, and the God of the RCC, not give you a strong indication that all of these Gods sprang from human minds molded by the time and culture in which they existed?

Why is this clearly self evident reality so hard for adults (especially reasonably educated adults) to grasp?

The fact of the matter is that there are some people who look at God in an entirely different way from how critics like you look at God, who have thoroughly thought through their beliefs, and have found resolutions to all the criticisms raised.

Just because some folks are able rationalize all of the inconsistencies, violations of physical law, twisted logic and failed reason inherent in believe in God, or can otherwise convince themselves of the existence of a magical being who lives in the sky, it does not mean that such a being exists outside of their (or your) imagination.

As has been mentioned many times on this board, please consider the thousands of supernatural beings that have existed in the minds of humans through the ages. Think about all of the creation and other religious myths that have been believed by millions and all of the religions for which millions have killed or been killed.

Can you really say, with a straight face, that of all of these Gods and demons generated by millions of minds over hundreds of thousands of years, the particular one that exists in your mind is the only one that also exists in the external physical world?

[_mentalgymnast]

lots of red words

I didn't see anything in red that could be construed as any better alternatives than that which we already observe and/or experience in the world.

You're great at dissing, less great at coming up with something better. First of all, you need to come up with what kind of a world do you think is the kind of world where maximum good is the result. What kind of world would that be? Keep in mind we are all free agents and lots of people are going to do bad stuff. Keep in mind there are lots of microbes and bad germs. Somehow they need to be dealt with. Also, don't forget those tectonic plates. Just HOW do you think God should interact with ALL his creatures on this planet?

Maybe a little more specificity than the first time around.

Regards,
MG

[_Bazooka]

First of all, you need to come up with what kind of a world do you think is the kind of world where maximum good is the result. What kind of world would that be?

One without religious beliefs.

Keep in mind we are all free agents and lots of people are going to do bad stuff. Keep in mind there are lots of microbes and bad germs. Somehow they need to be dealt with. Also, don't forget those tectonic plates. Just HOW do you think God should interact with ALL his creatures on this planet?

God doesn't. We just look at stuff that happens and attribute it to God.

Maybe a little more specificity than the first time around.

Regards,
MG

I feel like I've just butted in.....

[_Themis]

What are a few alternatives that you can think of in which the Creator of the Universe could/would choose from to communicate with his creations in matters of eternal importance to their immortal souls?

Now if we don't make that assumption... again, that in essence God remains somewhat hidden and inscrutable...then I suppose God could work things out to get some more TV time and make EVERYTHING clear, especially where we now have the internet, etc., ...not quite sure how he would have accomplished this back in pre-technology days.

Anyway, interested in some thoughtful alternatives that you might have in mind.

Are you really interested in thoughtful alternatives? It doesn't look like it to me. You move right to a mocking tone of TV time while passing up the one alternative you supposedly believe God has already done, which is showing up in person or sending angels. Perhaps you are avoiding it because it is a great way to communicate to people, and more importantly shows how inconsistent your position is. I noticed the post after your dealt with this and you ignored it. Cannot help but think you are not really serious here.

I also couldn't help but notice you did not say God talking to one man and sending him out to tell everyone else was not absurd as sethbag suggests.

And let's assume, for the moment, that His purposes would by necessity require that his creations are proving themselves without direct interference/inclusion of deity in their lives...that faith/hope/agency and opposition are a necessary component of the plan.

Why assume? It's not like it would affect hope or agency. You already believe people have seen and still rejected God as well as many who never passed any test before God/angels showed up. The only faith/belief it would affect is blind faith in God actually existing. How is this a valuable test? People make all kind of crap up and many people believe them. You in reality are saying this is a good trait God wants to see if people will do. This may be the most absurd example of them all.

[_mentalgymnast]

I feel like I've just butted in.....

So did the Doc. But that's OK. So far no one has really said anything much.

If anything, I'm the one that butted in. And I'm just asking a question.

Lot's of dissing, I see, but no alternative ways for God to work in the world, such as it is...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Are you really interested in thoughtful alternatives?

Yes.

Regards,
MG