Belief in God

[Chap]

I haven't believed God is all powerful for a very long time.

In that case, you do not believe in the deity worshipped by the great majority of religious Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Some Schmo, how could God have created the stable environment you spoke of, one where we "didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather"? Is that an easy thing to do, to create such a stable environment?

The deity you do not believe in (but most other theists do) may not be able to do that. But those other people's deities are omnipotent, and cannot therefore make use of that cop-out. Those people believe the world is the way it is because their deities chose to make it that way.

What sets the limits of your deity's powers?

[Jersey Girl]

FTR here is a list of people I would absolutely "dip" on because they are a waste of time.

1. Markk (vortex)
2. Ajax (vortex)
3. MG (vortex)
4. KevinSim (how I evaluate him right now).
5. Binger (Something's wrong with the guy and I'm not even curious as to what it is)

Jersey Girl, why do you think I am a waste of time, or might become a waste of time?

I'm here for like two seconds because that's really all the time I have at the moment. You wanna know why I think you're a waste of time?

A couple of reasons...and this is NOT an attempt to drive this thread off topic.

1. When you write an OP like you did whenever you started that thread in Terrestrial in which you named myself and msnobody, and when those posters reply to you, I expect you to reply to their posts. Last I looked up there which was last night or the night before, you had skipped right over my post. I just opened the thread msnobody made for you by name, and I see this reply from you:


msnobody: I have a favor to ask. I would like for you to articulate the biblical gospel as understood by evangelical Christians. I ask this because I want to know how you understand it. Over the years, I've gotten the idea that many Latter-day Saints believe that they believe the same gospel as evangelicals, but plus some. I also get the idea that many Latter-day Saints do not understand why the "plus some," in evangelical thought, places LDS as outside Christianity.

You: Would you mind articulating the biblical gospel to help me better understand?
Msnobody, what exactly does "biblical gospel" mean? Are you talking about the gospel as the Bible describes it?

What on EARTH to you think a person is asking when they ask you to articulate the Biblical Gospel as understood by EV Christian's? You have to ASK if they're talking about the gospel as the Bible describes it? What part of Biblical Gospel don't you understand?

Are you joking? I assume that msnobody, like myself, will see your screen name there and be ready to pick up the conversation. But only to find that you've posted some nonsense that's just going to drag the thread out into oblivion for no good reason.

I mean you actually asked me if my comment about belief in Jesus was relevant to this thread you (and LDS believer) made about God. Again, are you joking?

That's the kind of poster I will eventually put on ignore. Now, I saw that you made a reply to me here and I'll get to it. As I indicated earlier I am working my tail off right now. Example, I have 10 more minutes to get out the door here. But...I said so right on this thread so that Schmo and Cam knew I wasn't blowing them off. Why? We've been posting buddies here for years. Sometimes adversaries, sometimes in agreement...whatever. I respect that they are human beings here who engaged me on this thread and did them the respect of letting them know I'll be back and I WILL.

I have NO idea why you start threads and then continue to ignore various replies you get. It's wrong. It's disrespectful of the time people took to make a reply to you.

That's why I consider you a waste of time. I'm not going to go around in circles with someone like you. I can't say it better than that.

I'll be back here tomorrow evening when I'm off the hook for in real life things. Adios!

[canpakes]

I did a Google search on "the ones who walk away from omelas ursula le guin", and I got a blurb that included: "'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin.
…
It's never worth it. But our society seems to be saying yes, as long as the small child is so far in the future that it doesn't have to think about her/him a lot. Think about it a little bit. A lot of people ignore predictions of catastrophes caused by global warming ultimately because they're sure those catastrophes won't happen in their lifetimes. Who will pay for the convenience fossil fuel consumption provides them? Future generations! Their children and their grandchildren! Who will pay for congress' liberal use of deficit spending? Future generations. All of society is built on the assumption that when one generation is in its declining years, the next couple of generations will run senior care centers to take care of it. That's fine if those future generations are always guaranteed to exist. Are they?
All of this is just Omelas in another form. The small child who must suffer so that we can enjoy life is always so far in the future that we don't care what happens to her/him. My whole point is that we need to care. Our consciences should require us to care. That small child is a real person, with hopes and dreams like all of us, and we can't conscientiously afford to ignore that s/he exists.

KevinSim, what is it about LDS doctrine that supports this thinking, or enables it to be realized?

[Some Schmo]

You have no good reason to believe otherwise, except for its utility and associated comfort, but certainly not for any truth value.

SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) assumes that the Milky Way Galaxy (or Universe?) is home to more intelligent life than just what resides on Earth. What's the truth value of that assumption? Is it reasonable for SETI to look for radio transmissions from other star systems?

I don't know the truth value of that assumption, but I can say the odds that there is life on another planer is infinitely greater than the chances some benevolent god created this earth. Is it reasonable for SETI to do what they do? If the money is there, I don't see why not.

It doesn't necessarily follow, but it does seem like a good reason to doubt.

Absolutely it's reason to doubt. I find myself doubting it from time to time. But I see no good reason to dwell on such doubts.

I don't dwell on god doubt. I just have enough of it to not worry about whether a god exists or not. The whole god idea is a nonfactor in the way I conduct my life, except to the extent I question other people about their personal god concepts.

No credible reports of Bigfoot have been reported. Should we assume Bigfoot exists anyway?

I can't think of any good reason to assume Bigfoot exists. Can you?

No. If you apply the way you see Bigfoot to the way I see your god, you'll understand why I don't assume any gods exist.

[Some Schmo]

An obvious improvement would be a stable environment where we didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather.

Some Schmo, how could God have created the stable environment you spoke of, one where we "didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather"? Is that an easy thing to do, to create such a stable environment?

I would think it would be for a universe creator.

But of course, when I say that, I'm making up something about a god. You can easily come back and say that your god is constrained by natural law or some other excuse. In both cases, we are making crap up because neither of us know. It's why I've compared arguments about god to arguments about Star Wars. The argument is over a fictional story. I've come to the undeniable conclusion that any and every assertion about a god is made up. Everything everybody ever says about a god originated in someone's imagination, and as such, holds zero persuasive power with me. I don't respect people's "beliefs" just because they have them, especially when so many of them are silly or downright stupid. I respect everyone's right to think whatever they want, but I certainly don't have to respect their choices.

[Jersey Girl]

Sorry about the crap answer I gave you. You want to know wtf I was on about? I was on the heels of trying to wade through a post by KevinSim (who bears a strong resemblance to Markk in his posting "style") and I blew you off in the process.

Your explanation makes sense to me; I've been there (and have misdirected my annoyance). So, apology accepted.

Yeah, sorry for that. It wasn't a good choice on my part.

So yeah, Mother Nature and natural disasters.I agree those cause pain and suffering. I don't really think in terms of Mother Nature. I think of it as the natural world.

Mother Nature is a metaphor for the natural world. There's no difference to me.

Got it.

That said, I think there's two perspectives that a Christian can take on natural disasters.

1. The Creation is corrupted therefore God is outside of the Creation and can't control what happens on the inside so to speak.

There's one human-created assertion about a god.

Yes, it is. Let me keep going...

2. God does influence the Creation including the natural world and therefore God does visit natural disasters on humankind as I guess, a demonstration of power.

There's another one. I acknowledge they have a Christian origin, but they're still human assertions. The Christian religion, after all, was created by people too.

Yes, I agree that those are human assertions within the context of Christianity. There's a book I read years ago when I was on ZLMB by Karen Armstrong titled, The History of God. She goes back in time something like 12-14 thousand years ago starting with Paganism then follows various tribal concept of god developments. It seems that during that time, human worshiped nature-related gods and then the concept of Yahweh as a divine being entered human thought and belief. If I still had the book I would happily quote some of it. It was a compelling read.

On the other hand...if a Creator God exists and if (too many if's for an atheist, I know but I have to represent my own position) and if that God wired humans to be able to sense and/or communicate with it/him/her, then I think it's possible that when humans assert God they have experienced that being in some form. Yes, I know you are going to say that's subjective based on individual experience but when I think of God in that way, I have to ask "Why wouldn't it be subjective to the individual?" Because I think that aligns with the teachings of Christianity. It may align with the teachings of other religions that I am not well familiar with as well.

(I opened a door for you there if you want to walk through it or pass on it, either way is okay with me.)

Whew. Okay, how do I evaluate this as a Bible believer? Again, whew. I'll give it a go.

1. Debunked by the Bible itself where God does bring on The Flood, parts the waters through Moses, and Jesus's reported ability to calm the storm...and every other account of God directing the natural elements under the sun including the sun.

Agreed, from a theological standpoint, the first idea is untenable. But if you throw out other people's ideas about the origin's of the universe, it's as plausible as anything anyone else has come up with.

Do you mean like the Big Bang, the singularity and all the scientific theories? Also I don't know what you mean that the first idea is untenable. If you'd like to explain that further, I'm ready to read and think about it.

2. Proven by the Bible itself as per what I wrote about.

Agreed.

Oh no. You agreed with me? You're supposed to provide the conflict to my own assertions. I don't know what to do with you now, Schmo.

I'd have to go with 2. I also think that (and something you didn't cover or maybe were about to cover at some point) humans cause the majority of pain and suffering in the world due to human qualities such as greed.

I probably left loose ends in the above, feel free to press me further in that regard. I don't mind at all if you do so.

Sure, mankind causes tons of unnecessary pain (and that is a whole other discussion - why did a god create such crappy humans?), but that's a distraction. It doesn't absolve some creator of all the natural disasters and painful birth defects and etc, etc. This god people often talk about is purported to be loving and care about us. It's almost as though their belief depends on it.

You ask, why did god create such crappy humans? I think mentioned that in another post but in case I didn't actually post it, I would say that God is holy and anything he creates outside of himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt. I think I used the example of angels somewhere on this thread posed the question: Is it possible for angels to sin? And to that I say, "Yes".

In the interest of fairness, I'd have to ask myself where does my assertion leave Jesus? I don't know the answer to that right this moment but I will think about it. I don't mind challenging myself to think and think harder about a thing.

And then you (or I) have to ask if God is holy and anything he creates outside himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt then why put us all through it?

Possible answer: Because he is a creator and he wanted to create us. He made a way out of the suffering.

(There's another open door if you care to walk through it. You can pick it up and carry the ball or pass. It's okay with me either way.)

So far I haven't quoted scripture. How'm I doing when I bat things around?

[Jersey Girl]

---If anyone was expecting a reply from me here, I'll get on it soon. I just wanted to get myself back on the thread starting with Schmo. She's a bit brain fried at the moment.

[Some Schmo]

On the other hand...if a Creator God exists and if (too many if's for an atheist, I know but I have to represent my own position) and if that God wired humans to be able to sense and/or communicate with it/him/her, then I think it's possible that when humans assert God they have experienced that being in some form. Yes, I know you are going to say that's subjective based on individual experience but when I think of God in that way, I have to ask "Why wouldn't it be subjective to the individual?" Because I think that aligns with the teachings of Christianity. It may align with the teachings of other religions that I am not well familiar with as well.

(I opened a door for you there if you want to walk through it or pass on it, either way is okay with me.)

If someone were to experience god, there would certainly be a subjective component, but there might also be an objective one if it were to break with tradition and visit a group of people, allowing them to take pictures. Then we'd have documentation and congruent witness accounts.

As it stands, every single account of a god is made by unverifiable sources; in other words, they are all subjective experiences, and as a result, suspect.

Agreed, from a theological standpoint, the first idea is untenable. But if you throw out other people's ideas about the origin's of the universe, it's as plausible as anything anyone else has come up with.

Do you mean like the Big Bang, the singularity and all the scientific theories? Also I don't know what you mean that the first idea is untenable. If you'd like to explain that further, I'm ready to read and think about it.

You said, "The Creation is corrupted therefore God is outside of the Creation and can't control what happens on the inside so to speak." I agree that idea doesn't work within the context of Christianity.

All I was getting at there is that if you ignore everything you've ever heard about Christianity or any other version of the origin of the universe other than the scientific one, one idea is as good as the next. The thing that makes the scientific theory better is all the supporting evidence.

Agreed.

Oh no. You agreed with me? You're supposed to provide the conflict to my own assertions. I don't know what to do with you now, Schmo.

We agree often. Often, my silence is assent.

You ask, why did god create such crappy humans? I think mentioned that in another post but in case I didn't actually post it, I would say that God is holy and anything he creates outside of himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt. I think I used the example of angels somewhere on this thread posed the question: Is it possible for angels to sin? And to that I say, "Yes".

In the interest of fairness, I'd have to ask myself where does my assertion leave Jesus? I don't know the answer to that right this moment but I will think about it. I don't mind challenging myself to think and think harder about a thing.

And then you (or I) have to ask if God is holy and anything he creates outside himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt then why put us all through it?

Possible answer: Because he is a creator and he wanted to create us. He made a way out of the suffering.

(There's another open door if you care to walk through it. You can pick it up and carry the ball or pass. It's okay with me either way.)

So far I haven't quoted scripture. How'm I doing when I bat things around?

If there is a creator of the universe, I guess I'm at a loss for how this creation can be corrupted unless the creator baked corruption into the universe.

[Jersey Girl]

I wanted to come back to these comments because I find them interesting though I'm not entirely sure I understand them.

On a side note, my own philosophical take on morality is that we’re all a manifestation of the universe observing itself,

Here you are discussing morality without defining it. According to what I understand morality to be, morality or moral reasoning develops in stages. I've got a stage theorist for that! Lawrence Kohlberg.

or an A.I. who chooses to experience life in all its various forms, and so suffering is by design and the universe/A.I. is amoral and indifferent to our human sense of suffering.

Do you mean A.I. to be Artificial Intelligence of some sort? If so...doesn't artificial intelligence by it's very definition need to be created? I'm not well familiar with this so if you'll clue me in, I'd appreciate it.

It’s not a happy worldview, but it’s the best I got.

- Doc

I hear that. I tend to slide around when it comes to trying to explain my worldview. For example, I've commented on the board re: abortion as it relates to politics and religious belief. Probably most any Christian will tell you that they are anti-abortion. But then...they will go on to say they are in favor of abortion in certain cases.

I've said it before. I'm not a supporter of the termination of pregnancies unless certain medical circumstances prescribe it. Like it or not, I believe life begins at conception. BUT at the same time, I recognize that I am a citizen of the United States and I cannot rightly tell the sister next to me what her concept of life is or impose my own thoughts and beliefs on her. Why would I do that?

I support choice. Period. Choice. And I don't understand why other Christians are anti-choice. Why would they be? They have the choice not to terminate a pregnancy and the sister who chooses (or feels compelled to choose) terminate her pregnancy has that choice.

What's so hard to understand there?

Anyway, if you've got more to share on the A.I. worldview, I'm interested in hearing about it. And also have you made contact with others who hold the same current view?

[Jersey Girl]

I am asking you based on what you see in the New Testament if you would say that Jesus is a piece of crap.

My answer is based off the information provided in the New Testament. I didn’t provide referential scripture because I didn’t want to get bogged down in potential nitpicking over biblical interpretations of said non-quoted New Testament scriptures.

As an aside, I really don’t get how Christians can throw the Old Testament under the bus. Early Christianity is just a protestant version of judaism; trying to detangle it from judaism is akin to detangling early Mormonism from Masonry.

- Doc

From what I have seen, Christians alternately throw the Old Testament under the bus OR raise it up and wave it around like a flag when it suits their purposes. I suppose I hold a more moderate and often cautious view of the Old Testament. I've studied the Old Testament and tried to understand the what and why of it all. There are still parts that I am cloudy on.

I think the thing is that Yahweh entered human thought and belief essentially as the One God who was believed (still is) of divine nature. So far as I understand it, what we know as the Talmud was decided on by a council. I don't know enough about this and what I did know and discussed years ago, I've forgotten. Then basically the same thing happened with the New Testament. A council (and I seem to recall there were other councils prior to the Council at Nicea) decided which books fit into a complete set of works, let's say, based on those that were closer in time to the actual events described.

You say that early Christianity is a protestant version of Judaism. Do you mean that the New Testament authors (if you will) rely on Old Testament indications of the coming of the Messiah to continue the narrative? I'm thinking specifically about what some believe are the prophecies regarding the entrance of Jesus the Christ into human history.

Is that what you mean?

I hope you noticed that I, too, am not quoting scripture yet overall referring to it. I intended all along for my replies to come from my own thoughts and ideas. I can quote scripture but I think that we both are familiar enough with the KJV to know what we're referring to and that we're both trying to widen the lens and think about what we're seeing from afar as represented in scripture. At least that is what I try to do.