The problem I have with God...

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Congratulations! The all-purpose counter-argument, that forbids any critique of points of theological logic on this Thread, is yours and can be applied generally.

Sorry, I'm not entirely certain if you're being cutting or what? Could you explain?

To help you, I'll quote this back in context. since you were talking about god being into S&M in a big way.

Because according to the logic of that site, God is in to S&M in a big way and gave people free will so that they could sin and only earn his forgiveness through 'complete submission.'

But that's a persons definition of god. Thread title says 'The problem I have with God' and thus far, no one's actually addressed that.

In a court of law, misrepresentation can act as a case for appeal.

I did not suggest that God, whatever that word might mean in actuality, was in to S&M. I did point out that that was the conclusion one could reasonably draw from the Theological arguments and logic put forward in this section:

Hell

Of this site:

Answers for Atheists and Agnostics

This had been put forward by Grayalien as an example of: "a series of logical arguments against atheism".

You chose to draw a general conclusion, applicable to the Thread as a whole, from my critique of that Site.

That general conclusion more or less precludes any further discussion of anyone else's "definition of god".

No further discourse would be possible beyond the most child like: "I think God is...", or "I don't like "God, because.." etc.

And no one could comment on these individual definitions of god, because they were simply some "person's definition of god" etc.

You seem to draw some of your Theological discourse from the Bible. That book too is simply a collection of other people's definitions of god. Often based on other definitions of god, going back into the mists of time.

So, no more discourse. No more indefinable god. Time to climb back up the trees into unknowing. And about time too.

 

[ghostdog19]

Wasn't meant as a be all end all or criticism of the thread, simply an observation of how God seems to be covered because the conflicting views are those of different interpretations given by faiths.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Ghostdog19, I think you've misread what this thread is about. Go back to my first post, and you'll see that it isn't about 'interpretations of God', but observable facts and logical paradoxes. To remind you:

Point 1: That a prescient god of judgement is self-contradictory.

Point 2: That omnipotence, as a concept, is self contradictory.

Point 3: That there is no real way of knowing which religion is the 'correct' one.

Pomt4: That God appears to make no obvious distinction between his faithful and anyone else (at least in temporal terms).

There in also lies the notion of this 'mapped out future'. We map it by perpetually repeating the mistakes of the past. That's what I personally think that that actually means. the irony of free will is that really we're just doing what someone else has already done and cocked up yet we like to think we're innovative and pioneering in our faults. That's perhaps why we get biblical figures like Cain (the first murderer) to pre-empt the repitition of all those murderers to come. Time and again, no less. So to say that we don't know what's to come, well that's true also, but in hindsight one could argue 'why didn't we see that coming?'

So you see, we're given 'free will' and yet some people chose to follow in the footsteps of Cain, thus cyclically repeating the same mistake again and again. mapped by default. Part of human nature. So the notion of everything being mapped out is perhaps in relation to 'human nature'.

So...what you're saying that the future is both mapped-out and isn't...right? Kind of like the way God (in the mainstream Christian sense, at least) is supposed to be three beings (father, son, and holy spirit) but is also a single entity. And that 'God was always there', and had no beginning.

In considering these paradoxes, I suppose the conclusion is that God is beyond reason. He is beyond logic and rationality. Which leaves us, in fact, with a God who is unreasonable, illogical and irrational. Hmmm...

Where does the concept come from that God is supposed to be devoid of his own flaws and foibles?

General catholic tradition holds (I believe) that God is supremely perfect, and incapable of mistakes.

 

[ghostdog19]

Ghostdog19, I think you've misread what this thread is about. Go back to my first post, and you'll see that it isn't about 'interpretations of God', but observable facts and logical paradoxes. To remind you:

Point 1: That a prescient god of judgement is self-contradictory.

Point 2: That omnipotence, as a concept, is self contradictory.

Point 3: That there is no real way of knowing which religion is the 'correct' one.

Pomt4: That God appears to make no obvious distinction between his faithful and anyone else (at least in temporal terms).

Look, I GOT the point of the thread, it was just a remark about how God's ass is covered thanks to all the different interpretations. it wasn't an attack on any single poster or on the thread in general, it was just an observation that god seems cleared of any blame given how different people believe in him in deferent ways. Maybe more has been read into what I said than really needed to be, who knows? No big deal.

So...what you're saying that the future is both mapped-out and isn't...right?

mapped out in so far we know the error of our ways if we were to learn anything from history but we seem to walk into the same traps again and again and make the same mistakes.

Kind of like the way God (in the mainstream Christian sense, at least) is supposed to be three beings (father, son, and holy spirit) but is also a single entity. And that 'God was always there', and had no beginning.

I don't know about that. that pertains to not questioning faith and simply believing, regardless of any facts, doesn't it? I mean, to that degree, biblical texts could almost be read as the small print of a legal disclaimer as it were.

In considering these paradoxes, I suppose the conclusion is that God is beyond reason. He is beyond logic and rationality. Which leaves us, in fact, with a God who is unreasonable, illogical and irrational. Hmmm...

probably, yeah, I'd go with that reasoning. By our perception, because these actions aren't in our interests, they're therefor viewed as 'wrong'. So unreasonable, because he doesn't come round to our way of thinking, illogical, because it doesn't comply with what's best for us, and irrational because we have no say in the matter.

Where does the concept come from that God is supposed to be devoid of his own flaws and foibles?

General catholic tradition holds (I believe) that God is supremely perfect, and incapable of mistakes.[/quote] but that's just catholic tradition. how do the other doctrines play into this? I mean if the catholic tradition is the measure then I can see your point, he's not perfect (is it catholic tradition that he is?), but how does that hold with judaism and the others? you said at the start "the concept of the monotheistic God as revealed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam". Does the point you're making apply to all three, or have I completely misundertood the thread?

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

probably, yeah, I'd go with that reasoning. By our perception, because these actions aren't in our interests, they're therefor viewed as 'wrong'. So unreasonable, because he doesn't come round to our way of thinking, illogical, because it doesn't comply with what's best for us, and irrational because we have no say in the matter.

No - it doesn't matter if these actions are in our interests or not. The problem is that these actions/concepts (Judgmental yet prescient, omnipotent, no way of knowing what religion is the true one etc.) are paradoxes. Let's face it, if one get's one due reward in the afterlife because they've been safely judged as good, have chosen the right religion to follow and suchlike, then these attributes are entirely reasonable for the person concerned. Also, your final point - 'irrational because we have no say in the matter' - is wrong. If free will holds, then what we say in the matter (as per our actions in temporal life) should supposedly be all important to the matter.

 

[Graylien]

Where does the concept come from that God is supposed to be devoid of his own flaws and foibles?

It's the standard Christian/Islamic concept of God, which is was what we were originally discussing on this thread (although it now seems to have mutated into a "what-is-the-nature-of-God" sort of discussion.)

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

When any inconsistency or contradiction appears in what is perceived as behaviour by this omnipotent deity - the standard answer often given is something like " he (?) moves in mysterious ways" ie Don't worry your little heads about it, or question it . we can't see the bigger picture , just fall into line.

-

 

[ghostdog19]

When any inconsistency or contradiction appears in what is perceived as behaviour by this omnipotent deity - the standard answer often given is something like " he (?) moves in mysterious ways" ie Don't worry your little heads about it, or question it . we can't see the bigger picture , just fall into line.

-

That right there is the real all-purpose counter-argument. He moves in mysterious ways... job done!

A bit like your parents saying "because I said so!" whenever you asked "why?"

 

[Anonymous]

I saw a physisist on BBC2 once who said that the 'Big Bang' is proof of God's existance.

Apparently, the idea is that if the 'Big Bang' was too small, then when it happened, the universe would inflate then deflate because of lack of enough inertia or something.

Also, if the 'Big Bang' was too big, then all the stuff would have dispersed too much and no galaxies could have formed.

Then he said that the 'Big Bang' had to be exactly the right size of 'bang' in order for it to have worked - and the size was so particular that only by the will and genius of God could it of been so.

What do ye make of that one then folkes?

:heh:

 

[Twin_Star]

What do ye make of that one then folkes?

I think you've pretty much nailed the concept of the Anthropic Principle

The wiki thread i linked to has a nice discussion of this whole area, including why this anthropic principle could be seen as "carbon chauvinism".

Personally, i like the quabbalistic Jewish take on it. When creating the whole universe, G_d's essence was so strong that it cracked several layers of reality on the way down, before materialising into *matter* at the bottom of the tree of life. A bit like what H84 has going on in a UFO thread :shock:

 

[ghostdog19]

I saw a physisist on BBC2 once who said that the 'Big Bang' is proof of God's existance.

Apparently, the idea is that if the 'Big Bang' was too small, then when it happened, the universe would inflate then deflate because of lack of enough inertia or something.

Also, if the 'Big Bang' was too big, then all the stuff would have dispersed too much and no galaxies could have formed.

Then he said that the 'Big Bang' had to be exactly the right size of 'bang' in order for it to have worked - and the size was so particular that only by the will and genius of God could it of been so.

What do ye make of that one then folkes?

:heh:

Cosmogony. or as some atheists call it "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (an argument lacking in imagination) or the amusingly titled "God of the gaps" which is basically when God is used to explain anything in nature which science cannot. Cosmogony can be guilty of exactly that as it poses one or two scientific 'paradoxs' and is a theory not all physists share.

 

[Dingo667]

So, in a nutshell, you're saying that God designed us to be imperfect?

If it isn't, then why can't we take to god excercising wrath in the same manner as mother nature and wake up to our own responsibilities? Or is god really just subject to what's written in the bible, in which case, which one? My thoughts are, what people have umbridge with is probably just the interpretation of god rather than actually god.

There is one flaw with this idea. When Nature is "angry" it happens because somewhere an equilibrium is disturbed, be it by humans or by earth itself. Tsunamis happen because of earthquakes etc. So we can as humans at least try to stop doing damage.
However if a god would be angry, I couldn't take it the same, because its anger would be for personal reasons [maybe we didn't behave right, the way it intended or expected]. Well sod that I say.
Also, some people liken gods wrath with angry parents. Sod that as well because there are things that this god threatens humans with in the bible that my parents would never have threatened me with. I mean if parents went to ask their kid to murder their beloved guinea pig to show them how much he loved them, I would tell the NSPCC straight away!
So sod that as well.
Sod god!

 

[ghostdog19]

There is one flaw with this idea. When Nature is "angry" it happens because somewhere an equilibrium is disturbed, be it by humans or by earth itself. Tsunamis happen because of earthquakes etc. So we can as humans at least try to stop doing damage.
However if a god would be angry, I couldn't take it the same, because its anger would be for personal reasons [maybe we didn't behave right, the way it intended or expected].

fair point.

Sod god!

That'd look good on a t-shirt.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

That right there is the real all-purpose counter-argument. He moves in mysterious ways... job done!

That is not an argument, real or otherwise. It is simply a denial - a conceptual crutch favoured by those who do not wish to think too deeply on the matter, or who cannot face the flaws inherent in the belief system they so vociferously adhere to.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

I saw a physisist on BBC2 once who said that the 'Big Bang' is proof of God's existance.

Apparently, the idea is that if the 'Big Bang' was too small, then when it happened, the universe would inflate then deflate because of lack of enough inertia or something.

Also, if the 'Big Bang' was too big, then all the stuff would have dispersed too much and no galaxies could have formed.

Then he said that the 'Big Bang' had to be exactly the right size of 'bang' in order for it to have worked - and the size was so particular that only by the will and genius of God could it of been so.

What do ye make of that one then folkes?

That maybe Hoyle was right?

 

[ghostdog19]

That is not an argument, real or otherwise. It is simply a denial - a conceptual crutch favoured by those who do not wish to think too deeply on the matter, or who cannot face the flaws inherent in the belief system they so vociferously adhere to.

I don't doubt it.

re: my post on 'the god of gaps'. seems science has its own version of the same.

 

[Anonymous]

That maybe Hoyle was right?

Who was Hoyle?

 

[Anonymous]

Cosmogony. or as some atheists call it "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (an argument lacking in imagination) or the amusingly titled "God of the gaps" which is basically when God is used to explain anything in nature which science cannot.

It seems to me that all religion is for is explaining things that science has not or seemingly cannot.

I have also thought about the idea of religion being used to give people hope (I hope God makes my harvest a good harvest this year!) and the idea of religion being used as an excuse for war (crush the heathens / infidels / non believers, in the name of <insert name(s) of chosen deity or deities here>).

Seems religion can also be used as a means of control (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal...) and some laws are seemingly based on these.

One of the annoying things about religion apart from its blatent misuse as an excuse to do something (anything, even to fornicate with any woman or girl who joins your cult for example) - one of the most annoying things is this;

Thou shalt worship me - and thou shalt not worship any other god or image other than me.

Why the hell should I worship anything or anyone? What a pointless and futile excercise.

Who the hell (yes I know - hell is a religious reference, see how religion permeates every level of civlilization, yawn) is this God person anyway that He is so vain and egotistical that He needs me to get down on my knees, bow my head and sing in a happy cheerful (but respectful) voice about how great He is and how much I love Him?

:headbutt:

 

[Mythopoeika]

I'm sure that if God exists, he/she/it is as completely baffled by the worshipping thing as you are, Coldelephant.
Gods don't need to be worshipped; they are too big for all that nonsense.
Heck, they probably don't care if we're even downright rude about them.
Only people, with their limited perspective, feel the need to worship.

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

Who was Hoyle?

Sir Fred Hoyle, (in)famous British astronomer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Formulated the Steady State Theory, which holds - amongst other things - that the universe is eternal, unending and without beginning (basically). Was constantly at odds with the Big Bang theory of creation, which contradicted his theory - indeed, he actually coined the phrase 'big bang theory' to take the mickey out of it, little realising that adherents to the very same principle would throw it back at him by making it an 'acceptable' term for the event itself. Funny guys, these scientists, eh!

The thing about the Steady State concept is that it doesn't really leave any room for God. One wonders if the Big Bang Theory only really appeals - and continues to go largely unchallenged - because a lot of very religious people in very high places prefer it to be so (though it has to be said that current scientific evaluation favours the Big Bang theory). For the record, I myself haven't a clue if, when, or how the universe came into being.

For more on the Steady State theory, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory

 

[ghostdog19]

The thing about the Steady State concept is that it doesn't really leave any room for God. One wonders if the Big Bang Theory only really appeals - and continues to go largely unchallenged - because a lot of very religious people in very high places prefer it to be so (though it has to be said that current scientific evaluation favours the Big Bang theory).

I think 'the god of all gaps'/ Cosmogony is applied for the simple reason that there is no scientific conflusion (specifically when it's applied I mean, because as you point out there are other schools of thought, equally conclusive) not that there some higher authority or religious conspiracy. So the athiests have it, for want of a better imagination.

When you consider science in its infancy relied on biblical expression to communicate ideas as vast and varied as anti-bodies being angels and demons etc, that was simply because they lacked the scientific terminology or thought processes for their time. It's also possible that scientific lingo then had applied religious description to scientific thought simply to avoid accusations of heresy.

That we come up against them now in these more, supposedly, enlightened times I think is more a reflection of where philosophy, science and theology have met at a common juncture. A proverbiable brick wall.... but perhaps only for the time being as science continues to beat back theology.

For the record, I myself haven't a clue if, when, or how the universe came into being.

Good. I'm somewhat reassured. Because if you did know then I would have to ask myself who I was talking to[/i]

 

[barfing_pumpkin]

barfing_pumpkin wrote:
For the record, I myself haven't a clue if, when, or how the universe came into being.

Good. I'm somewhat reassured. Because if you did know then I would have to ask myself who I was talking to[/i]

Oops - er, I took myself a bit out of context there, didn't I? I meant it in relation to how I stand regarding the current theories, in that my ignorance prevents me from having an in-depth understanding any of them!

 

[rynner2]

God no longer male, Scottish Episcopal Church rules
A new order of service produced by the Scottish Episcopal Church has caused controversy by removing masculine references to God.
Published: 7:00AM BST 06 Sep 2010

The new form of worship, which removes words such as "Lord, he, his, him" and "mankind" from services, has been written by the church in an attempt to acknowledge that God is "beyond human gender".

Episcopalian bishops have approved the introduction of more "inclusive" language, which deliberately removes references suggesting that God is of male gender.

Traditionalists have criticised the changes on the grounds that they smack of political correctness and because they believe they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The alterations have been made to provide an alternative to the established 1982 Liturgy, which, like the Bible, refers to God as a man.

The new order of service, which can be used by priests if they have difficulties with a male God, has been produced by the church's Liturgy Committee in consultation with the Faith & Order Board of General Synod and the College of Bishops.

The controversial changes were discussed at the church's General Synod recently. The minutes of the synod reveal that female priests had asked why God was still referred to as a man.

The altered version of the 1982 Liturgy sees masculine pronouns removed when they refer to God and the new approach has even been extended to humans. For example, the word "mankind" has been taken out and replaced with "world".

Some senior religious figures have objected to the new form of words. "It is political correctness," said Rev Stuart Hall of the Scottish Prayer Book Society and Honorary Professor of Divinity at the University of St Andrews

"It is quite unnecessary. The word man in English - especially among scientists - is inclusive of both sexes.

"Those who try to minimise references to God as the Father and Christ as his Son have great difficulties, because the New Testament is shot through with these references."

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rules.html

 

[escargot]

It is quite unnecessary. The word man in English - especially among scientists - is inclusive of both sexes.

In theory, yup. In practice, everyone knows that as God is a bloke, the blokes are the bosses. We're not fooled. :lol:

 

[rynner2]

More people with problems, tonight on TV:

The Case for God? BBC1 London from 11:05pm to 11:35pm

With religion coming under increasing attack from atheists and sceptics, The Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, goes into the lion's den, putting his faith publicly on the line by debating with some of the sharpest critics of his faith. Howard Jacobson believes ritual demeans religion, Alain de Botton doubts that any one faith has the truth, Professor Colin Blakemore thinks science makes religion redundant, and Professor Lisa Jardine questions why God allows evil and suffering in this world.


Might be on iPlayer later...

 

[river_styx]

Science may have replaced god for a lot of people, but that isn't to say it isn't used as a form of control.

 

[ramonmercado]

Science may have replaced god for a lot of people, but that isn't to say it isn't used as a form of control.

Thank Lucifer for that.

 

[SHAYBARSABE]

...or more to the point, the problem I have with the concept of the monotheistic God as revealed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The following points should illustrate this:

1) That an omnipotent, omniscient and merciful God of judgement is self-contradictory.

2) That omnipotence itself is self-contradictory

3) That His divine favour is pretty much a lottery.

4) that He doesn't seem to care that much for His faithful in the first place.

Well, yes, items 1-3 make sense. I'm not sure about item 4 in that while, on the one hand, the universe does seem like a cold, mechanistic place, on the other hand, there are some rather Fortean moments of compassion.

In general, however, I think that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic religions have survived because beneath the barnacles of history and ritural is a simple message: take care of each other and the world around you.

 

[river_styx]

Science may have replaced god for a lot of people, but that isn't to say it isn't used as a form of control.

Thank Lucifer for that.

The next time I have him over I'll pass on your regards. That's if he stops bickering with Jesus and the Easter Bunny for long enough.