God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[dastardly stem]

This triggered me to think of my own actions when I create things..

When I make something, I don't feel the need to create a secondary thing to keep the thing that I made when it eventually breaks. I make a piece of furniture, or build a computer, or design a vivarium -- when they break, or die, I have never felt compelled to make a separate space to put them in for them to exist in perpetuity.

So... either creator gods are de facto hoarders, or an afterlife isn't necessarily a certainty.

Naturally, I'm not comparing my tinkerings to the creation of a human; but, when one views a deity who creates universes... the creation of humans is pretty much menial tinkering.



[This Space Reserved For "His Ways, Our Ways"]

That is very interesting to thin about. Mormonism has something perhaps to say here. God is not something other, but is of the same species as his children and they are his children. Perhaps in that way, God, on Mormonism, has more of a reason to perpetuate our lives, moreso, than traditional Christianity. On the traditional view, God is wholly other. Perhaps in the way he's been said to behave, as recorded in ancient scripture, that makes a lot more sense than Mormonism. God doesn't really care. He wants to be worshipped ultimately. He needs somethings to do that worshipping. If he kills them all off, I suppose he frustrated his own purpose of getting creatures to worship him. I don't know. Being worshipped sounds like nonsense to me. Wanting to be worshipped or expecting it, is narcissism. Creating beings to suffer with some few of those who endure to be those who get to worship you is beyond our ability to describe with the term narcissism, it seems to me.

[MG 2.0]

How would your answer change if your example was about your son versus an inanimate object? Not trying to hit you with a "gotcha" here but I think if one's perspective on god(s) are that they are loving creators that regard us more as children then the equation changes quite a bit. I know that our time is fleeting and I do many things to preserve and extend the time I share with loved ones.

For me, if you start with the assumption of "Loving Creator God in the Image of Parents" and all of the power that would come with then an afterlife is a fairly logical conclusion. Sure there are further arguments about whether creating an afterlife is a power that naturally flows from the creation of life (it certainly isn't for us) but I can easily see the steps behind MG's thinking.

ETA: I think this is why humans being created in God's image is a fairly important bit of Mormon thinking. It allows for the superimposing of our understanding of life creation and the family back onto God (obviously they view the sequence of events as reverse of that). It prevents the framing of our creation as "menial tinkering" and instead it paints us as the most important thing in this universe, God literally created everything just for us so what's an eternal afterlife on top of that?

I guess (currently, at least) I see it as a kind of hubris to assume that if there were a creator God, that we would be the thing that's in its image. Don't get me wrong, I can't even comprehend how much humans are absolutely mind-blowing. But, why not assume stars are the creation that God made in its own image, since they themselves create the very building blocks of just about everything? Why not the universe itself, as it is constantly expanding, creating, growing? Looking around at the vastness of everything (biological and not), and humans just seem so silly.

It's an excellent question Xeno, and if one approaches it as a loving creator God that looks at humans (and possibly all living things) as children of sorts, then the the creation of an eternal existence of peace and happiness would most definitely be the default position in my opinion. However, circling back to the ole problem of evil; we'd then be left with either acknowledging the limitations in ability and power that said creator God has, or acknowledging that the absolute horrors and trauma some are inflicted to are purposefully allowed to happen, despite the ability to intervene. The latter almost seems necessary as the former would mean that a Being capable of loading the quantum dice of creation is simultaneously unable to have a child rapist trip over something in a moment, throwing the timing enough for them to never find the opportunity with their victim. Or, maybe God is able to, and has done it regularly, and then we are faced with why It then lets it happen to some and not others? With each layer, or question regarding a Parental Deity, it just opens up another wound masked as a question.

I’ve for many years appreciated the ideas of John Polkinghorne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

Scroll down to “Ideas”.

I love this stuff.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

DS would like me to somehow prove God’s existence as if the ‘greats’ haven’t been working with the ‘god problem’ for millennia.

No, MG, I've told you or clarified for you a dozen or so times in this thread that I'm not looking for proof. I have asked you for an explanation of why you believe, and that's basically gone ignored. But yes, those who have presented cases for God fall short, as evidence by people arguing over the main premises and assumptions made by those who believe in God.

I mentioned to him that believing in God becomes a matter of choice.

Where? I didn't see you say that. If you had I missed the opportunity to tell you how foolish that is. It seems to me we don't necessarily choose what we think is true. We get convinced that something is true. If one wishes to think of their mother as a peanut butter sandwich, they only in lying to themselves would say they chose to believe such nonsense. YOu can't force yourself to believe things you don't believe. I suppose you can pretend to believe something you don't. Or hope for things you aren't convinced of. This latter idea might work a bit with what you're saying. If one is not convinced there's a god, I suppose they can continue to hope there is one. But, of course that's not reason either.

But if I’m going to make that choice I’m hard pressed not to think that I also fit in with a grander scheme of things than simply snuffing out when I die.

It is a wonder to me. How do believers think they are so special as to fit in with a grander scheme while non-believers are not? One must wonder if that's the reason why people have hoped for belief.

[Doctor Steuss]

Oof, I just vaporized a long reply to the void somehow ("Is that you God?!?). Allow me to summate. You and I are very closely aligned here Steuss and I'm glad I prodded for more. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Oh no! That's the worst. Equally parts frustrating for you, and for me as well, as I always enjoy your thoughts.

I have farted in the general direction of the void, as an act of solidarity.

[MG 2.0]

I have asked you for an explanation of why you believe, and that's basically gone ignored.

Nutshell. Even though I’ve expressed this many times and at greater length on this board.

1. Purpose and plan for creation rather than not.

2. Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning

3. Related to #1…there’s more to existence than chance.

Number two is the ‘proof’ for God (and yes, I know there are arguments that have been given against it…well, of course!) and 1 and 3 are the outgrowth.

Pretty simple, really. I don’t expect you’ll go along with it.

But I’m not going to argue it. When all is said and done…at the end of the day…this is where I land/stand.

Now, stop pestering me!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It is a wonder to me. How do believers think they are so special as to fit in with a grander scheme while non-believers are not? One must wonder if that's the reason why people have hoped for belief.

I recently posted this link but here goes again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

I think that this gentleman/scientist answers your questions much better and with greater lucidity than I can. Again, scroll down to “Ideas”.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It seems to me we don't necessarily choose what we think is true.

I’m convinced, at least in my case, this isn’t true. I do appreciate the fact that you used the qualifier ‘think’ rather than ‘know’. Otherwise I think I would agree with you.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mormonism has something perhaps to say here. God is not something other, but is of the same species as his children and they are his children. Perhaps in that way, God, on Mormonism, has more of a reason to perpetuate our lives, moreso, than traditional Christianity.

I think you have this much right.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Mormonism has something perhaps to say here. God is not something other, but is of the same species as his children and they are his children. Perhaps in that way, God, on Mormonism, has more of a reason to perpetuate our lives, moreso, than traditional Christianity.

I think you have this much right....

dastardly Stem's point went well beyond your truncation of his post. Or maybe you meant you agreed with him when he said this...

That is very interesting to thin about. Mormonism has something perhaps to say here. God is not something other, but is of the same species as his children and they are his children. Perhaps in that way, God, on Mormonism, has more of a reason to perpetuate our lives, moreso, than traditional Christianity. On the traditional view, God is wholly other. Perhaps in the way he's been said to behave, as recorded in ancient scripture, that makes a lot more sense than Mormonism. God doesn't really care. He wants to be worshipped ultimately. He needs somethings to do that worshipping. If he kills them all off, I suppose he frustrated his own purpose of getting creatures to worship him. I don't know. Being worshipped sounds like nonsense to me. Wanting to be worshipped or expecting it, is narcissism. Creating beings to suffer with some few of those who endure to be those who get to worship you is beyond our ability to describe with the term narcissism, it seems to me.

[huckelberry]

I think you have this much right....

dastardly Stem's point went well beyond your truncation of his post. Or maybe you meant you agreed with him when he said this...

That is very interesting to thin about. Mormonism has something perhaps to say here. God is not something other, but is of the same species as his children and they are his children. Perhaps in that way, God, on Mormonism, has more of a reason to perpetuate our lives, moreso, than traditional Christianity. On the traditional view, God is wholly other. Perhaps in the way he's been said to behave, as recorded in ancient scripture, that makes a lot more sense than Mormonism. God doesn't really care. He wants to be worshipped ultimately. He needs somethings to do that worshipping. If he kills them all off, I suppose he frustrated his own purpose of getting creatures to worship him. I don't know. Being worshipped sounds like nonsense to me. Wanting to be worshipped or expecting it, is narcissism. Creating beings to suffer with some few of those who endure to be those who get to worship you is beyond our ability to describe with the term narcissism, it seems to me.

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego. I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.