Hotseat! God

God is the name given to the mysteries of the universe. There are limits to what we can grasp. Our perceptions and mentalities are limited. We go to worship with the idea that their are things we are not capable of understanding. We call this mystery God if it is benevolent and the Devil if it is malignant. If we are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish we assume that God has a personal interest in each and every one of us. If we are Buddhist we don't believe in a creator God but in an equally mysterious oneness of the universe and we believe the Buddha and the Boddisattvas are interested in our well being.

Or in Sexy Celebrity's case Jake Gyllenhal is the name given to God.

I am of two minds about debate. I think we should foster reasoned argument but I am probably more likely to turn things into a playground. But only if the debate has disintegrated into name-calling or tautologies.

neg rep from yoda.

nerve has been struck.

yikes.

anyways

GOD4 is a fairytale.. a figment of the imagination, not unlike zeus or poseoden, to explain the unexplainable.

that is

why do bad things happen to good people?

why do cheaters often prosper?

The Omnipotent Paradox pretty much seals the deal does it not?

unless you contend that God as you see him/her/it is not omnipotent.

is that the case?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Yep, negative rep (with an explanatory comment, by the way) because it was a drive-by; just a little jab that didn't make an argument and didn't take the topic seriously, and acted offended that I'd dared to ask that only people interested in the thread topic to participate. As if that's some kind of revolutionary idea.

And all three of your questions (which are all the same question, basically) are answered by the concept of Free Will. Though your question is jumping ahead in the discussion quite a bit, anyway.

I think it's the witch avatar. It's not doing you any favors. I couldn't even positive rep you for it over in the Movie Theme Avatar thread.

And I'm only half kidding -- it bothers me because it reminds me of someone I'm currently mad at.

Anyway, sorry to mention this in here. Yoda, I'm not mad at ya or think you're a stuck-in-the-mud, but, whew, what a surprising turn of events.

Just so it's clear... I basically talkin' to McClane and Yoda here. I can't imagine many other takers.

I would encourage everyone to take their time on their answers. I'm hoping this will be a nice, steady discussion, but one that hopefully doesn't take up too much of anyone's time. This is a Movie Forum after all!

^___^

Absolutely. But I need a clarification... does this mean that you believe that our destinies are unknowable, both in life and after life? Should this be added to our model of GOD 2?

Sounds plausible to me.

Wat. So... you don't think prayer works? You don't think God talks to people? What about Moses and the like? How far does this "hiding" extend? Do you believe in good works?

Are you familiar with Kierkegaard's "Teleological Suspension of the Ethical"? Do you believe in this concept of, to put it vulgarly, supramorality? Even if the command to murder his son is immoral, didn't Abraham ultimately do the right thing by obeying God? Or should he have disobeyed a direct command from God? Note the fact that Abraham ultimately did not sacrifice his son; his morality was only suspended up until the moment he was pardoned. Was he correct to do this? Or do you not believe that this event occurred (I certainly don't)---since you said that you cannot have a personal relationship with God?

Yes... you recommended this book to me before. I actually was planning on checking out Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief instead. Still... the ideas sound good.

Why indeed. But, as I can see you began to do so below, we must first agree on the relationship between A) good, B) God, and C) mankind. This is where I think the Euthyphro discussion can come in handy.

I don't want to counter this just yet. I need to think for a bit.

This seems to be something along Descartes' lines? Or maybe Platonic Idealism? Perceiving imperfection and injustice in something automatically suggests that there must be something out there that is both perfect and just (and any number of ideals). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your dichotomy is the following:

Either...

1. ...meaning is completely subjective, or...
2. ...meaning is (presumed to be) completely objective.

Wittgenstein said that "to believe in God means to see that life has a meaning."

Could this... perhaps... be related to, or consist entirely of, a discussion about meaning?!?!?

No one should devote too much time to this thread. The worst thing that can happen is exhaustion over the topic. As rich and profound as the topic is, too much of a good thing is often disastrous.

Take a week or so, if need be!

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I was responding to a comment made by Earl. his was a post with comic undertones, my response was as well.

much a do about nothing.

What is you want us to do exactly? Come up with our definition of God? Do I need to call it God 4 or God 5 or is that your job, bookkeeper?

So... God = "mysteries"??? This seems to be your explanation for how the concept of God arises socially/individually, no?

I don't know if its merely to answer questions about the universe either. Science and philosophy have been answering all kinds of questions for what seems like forever, but still, religion persists. Belief is more complex than just an acceptance of an answer. Some answers are bound to be more or less appealing to human beings. Answers from science are usually less-than-convincing to the average person. On top of that, I think the idea that a human being is fundamentally no different from a bacterium is both horrifying and unacceptable. Even scientists who claim this do not truly "believe" it themselves. I certainly do not see things this way, as much as I understand it rationally to be an accurate comparison.

That's because the average person would like the answers to be neat and tied with a bow.


What is unacceptable? Life adapts to its enviroment. Humans aren't more evolved than bacteria, we simply evolved differently.

I think a greater problem, is the belief some folks have that Humans are top of the foodchain because we have adapted exceptionally well to our enviroment.

If our Enviroment was to change drastically, say the oceans were struck by a mammoth asteroid plunging the land undersea for instance.

Suddenly our species would be hard-pressed to survive much less thrive to this new enviroment thrust upon us.

Bacteria on the other hand, stands a better chance.

Well... I'll take this time to survey who among you actually believes in the theory of Evolution. Applicable or not... I'm curious.

>What is unacceptable?

When you look at a human, you see an entirely different thing than when you look at a bacteria. It is not the same to you at all. You do not accept the fact that bacteria and humans are the same on any level, I claim. In actually, both are merely "distortions" of each other, as they operate under the same genetic code. Why is it then that when we see one kind of Lego set compared to another kind of Lego set we understand that both are Lego sets, although they may form different shapes? The idea of a human is a singular form in the mind of a human, and a bacterium is about as far away from that form as you can get. When I look at a bacterium, I see nothing human about it. And yet... I should.

God, as we know him/it/her, is a human projection. The true nature of God or the gods is something we will never know. But the projection allows for changes in our belief structure or lack of one.

The Buddhists do not believe that bacteria are no different from human beings (I imagine that oneness that I referred to is what you are referring to when you make this analogy.) They have a quite human and healthy attitude towards human life. They believe it is the highest incarnation you can reach because as a human being you are more likely to attain enlightenment. You can reason, feel empathy and know sorrow; all necessary attributes for becoming enlightened. The gods in Buddhist tradition have a much tougher time becoming enlightened because their great power gets in the way of their understanding of the interconnectedness of all beings. Other animals are probably seen by Buddhists in the same manner in which we view our pets. We love them and would never eat them but we don't really believe their are on par with us.

I am assuming that nourishing our human selves on the flesh of animals was an initial recognition of the interconnectedness of all beings. Without animals and animal products like milk we would have starved. As human life became less precarious we were able to empathize with animals we used for food and vegetarianism as religious vow became more popular.

Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor not so long ago (geologically speaking). Humans and present-day bacteria also had a common ancestor -- it was just much farther in the past.

Yes, I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

I can't speak to what you should or shouldn't do.

My claim is that we as a species are simply an organism that isnt any more signifigant than that of any other in the grand scheme of things.

If anything, we are a mistake, as the only species (i may be wrong here, correct me if this is the case), that has demonstrated the capacity to kill our own for non-survival reasons.


a lot of this will be possibly be explained when the our Alien (gods) celestial brethern return.

I'll be honest and say that I didn't read all of the "God" definitions because I don't believe he can be defined anyway. I did want to throw my two cents in though.

My faith is more important to me than anything and it's what gets me through every single day. God can't be explained. He can't be proved. You simply have to believe in him. It's not an easy thing to do especially when all we have to go is the words and stories that have been passed down. Like anyone would, I have my relapses and question things. But I think I'm a much happier person because with faith comes hope.

__________________

Right Queen. if you believe in God, no empirical evidence is required.

If you don't believe in God, no empirical evidence exists.


If you believe you are a happier person as a result, who am I or any other to say otherwise.

i'm still trying to figure out what this thread is supposed to be about. other than its serious business and not to be made light of i mean.

Alright, I'll bite. I'll bite harder than a kinky George Burns bitin' on his cigar while he makes love to Earl's women. I am going to give a completely serious definition of God. There's nothing I'd love more to do. But let me stress that I am the person who made the "I'm Becoming A Fabulous Atheist" thread (which, I think, I edited to remove most of my original post -- don't ask -- I felt at the time that it was stupid. Now I kinda think I should re-edit it using my original post quoted by others.) Anyways, let me put on some Mozart and I'll begin writing my definition of God. I'll even do the whole God n format that our bookkeeper wants us to use.
---------------------------------------

God 69
A definition by Sexy Celebrity:

What does God mean to me? I have, for some time now, considered myself agnostic. Am I really a fabulous atheist at heart, though? I admit that I fear more and more that God does not exist. But what exactly is God? Is God a person? Is God the creator? The father of Mankind? Is God someone I could actually meet in person? Is God watching me right now? Or ever? Is God someone watching what I do -- what everyone does? Is God an actual entity?

I was born and raised to believe in God. My mother is a Baptist who confesses a solid belief in God. My father is a grumpy sourpuss that was raised Catholic and always claimed to be an atheist whenever he answered the front door because Michael, LaToya and the rest of the Jehovah's Witnesses were calling on my family. But he might secretly, at heart, believe in God. My older sister read every Max Lucado book she could get her hands on and she eventually married a man who studied for the priesthood. They preach religion and Jesus everywhere they go, much to my disdain. My sister has now found Joyce Meyer. My mother alternates between books on the Apocalypse and books on reincarnation and UFOs. I read Carl Sagan and Jake Gyllenhaal Monthly.

The subject of God has always fascinated me probably thanks in large part to my wacky family upbringing, the constant chatterings of Christian messages full of hope, love and damnation, and my possibly innate curiosity with the world, with the reason for why we're here. At a very early age, I was already asking questions such as, Can you imagine if there was nothing at all? If there was nothing -- no people, no planet, no outer space, no life? I mean, I seriously asked these things starting around 5 years old. I was 25 when I learned that you don't ask these things while driving with a gay church music director down a scenic, nature filled road -- it's much too deep for a first date. Thank God for popcorn and The MoFo Support Group. Ohhhh, but what exactly am I thanking?

I've only been to church a few times in my life. My older sister would take me a few times when I was a child. We never went as a family. But she and I would go to the 11:00 am Sunday service. I would pray for Monday when I would go back to school -- it was less boring. Sometimes we would stand up and sing from a hymnal, which was really embarrassing. I hated singing in all the school music classes I used to have to take. So, singing in church was pointless and not even something that was required of me! I don't know what it is with me, psychologically, that made me date a lot of music majors who loved to sing, who also happened to be very religious. My ex-partner was one of those people. I also made an appearance in a few churches because of him, whether it was for some kind of orchestra rehearsal or an actual musical program being put on. I remember reviewing a Bible during such a time. God seemed like such a tyrant in the passages that I read.

Anyway, enough background. What is my definition of God?

I have come to believe that it's impossible to really define God. Those that don't believe in God but follow science and natural law have got the ultimate, most definitive definition of God that I think we could possibly have right now: There is no God. Nothing to define.

I choose not to really see it like that. They could very well be right, but my agnosticism keeps me open minded. I would say that God is not human. He probably does not resemble a person, unless he/she/it (and I'm not calling God a hermaphrodite, there, either) may choose to appear that way, for whatever reason.

I think that, considering the universe we live in is so enormous, with so many planets and galaxies, that we don't know much about all there is. I don't think there's one correct religion on Earth because I have no idea what else is going on in the physical universe we do live in, even if we aren't seeing it/experiencing it/knowing it.

I think it's possible that, if there is a God, whatever God is, we are probably connected to God, somehow. It may even be possible that we are a part of God. But don't let that get to your head. We are still all simple, ordinary human beings on the planet Earth. We are all very small. What happens to us after we die -- if we continue on somewhere else -- I can't say for sure. Sadly, it could be nothing. We are barely even specs of dust when you consider how enormous this physical universe we inhabit is. BUT, I am amazed that us specs of dust have created and cultivated all that we currently have on Earth. I think there is something miraculous and wonderful about that. I think we should preserve that and try to become even bigger and better than we are now.

In my opinion: God is whatever we define him/her/it to be. Simply put, I don't think God's gonna answer us directly and tell us if we're right or wrong. If he does, then you've just redefined him on your own. God could be the most wonderful thing in the world or the most awful thing. Because our ideas about God come from ourselves, in a way, God is ourselves. We restructure the universe in our own ways with whatever we do and say. If you think about that, we're no different than all of the other stuff that made the universe, that evolved all of the different species, that form things, that destroy things. The Big Bang was an explosion and scattering of chemicals -- we're all made of chemicals. We're directed by the chemicals in our brains.

God is us. God is everything. But is there a God outside of everything? A God that's watching us and directing us? I don't know. I think it would be very nice if there was, and I don't look down on those who feel that way.

God's a feeling. You either feel God with you or you feel hatred or indifference or the thought of God makes you wanna laugh. God's an idea that was somehow put into humanity's mind.

To put it bluntly, I don't know what the hell God truly is. If he wants to have dinner with me and let me get to know him, it can be arranged, but he'll have to come to my place -- I'm not ready to go to his place.

I'll end this post with a vision:

Just so you know, this thread is not about belief and should not be about belief, because that is an enormous topic that, for me, would involve some psychoanalysis. However, I see now from both yours and Classicqueen's comments that it is very quickly turning into a discussion on belief.

>God can't be explained. He can't be proved. You simply have to believe in him.

I guess the entire field of Apologetics is for nothing then? Fine with me.

Not at all, but it certainly can be applied. And it wasn't an analogy but an example of how knowledge and belief are two different things.

I can't see the relevance of derailing this into a discussion about the positives of Buddhism, which---even as an atheist---I would gladly reject in favor of Christianity any day. Buddhism and Christianity are not simply different belief system but different ways of mapping the field of belief as such. Enlightenment is nothing more than the acceptance of any perception of heterogeneity as a neurosis. Perhaps the most blatant problem is how this can be used to avoid ethics as we know it, which does not assume monism as its highest value, but rather, the opposite; namely that there are other beings who are utterly, inextricably separate from yourself. Oneness in everything basically assumes that problems do not exist as problems in themselves but as problems of your perceiving them as problems. Christianity at least dares to admit that, yes, there are real problems and something revolutionary needs to be done in order to solve them. It is not merely a matter of perspective.

Ah, I see, you're misunderstanding the nature of Jesus then, but I'll get to that in a minute. Also, as for the physical existence of Heaven and Hell, there are no such places. At least, the idea of a plane of existence beyond our own that encompasses the Kingdom of God was, most definitely, created by modern Christianity (say, 17th century onwards). And I would disagree that atheism has a poetry of its own, unless you mean its acceptance of the lack of meaning, which creates its own problems.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Certainly, there is no such things as a spiritual atheism.

Alright, we might have to come back to this, but materialism (atheism) spells out very unsettling problems for humanity.

I'll use the same phrase you do: wut?

Yeah, that works. Clarification: basically, the life of Jesus serves as our eviction notice and tells us we need to start paying the moral rent.

Alright, so what you're saying is that there's two separate aspects to God 1: his good side and his bad side? Would it be fair to say that we can divide God 1 into two minor parts then? If so, the bad side must like badness for the mere sake of being bad.

However, does this even make sense? Is it comprehensible? No, because bad has only two driving points: sadism, a sexual perversion that grants a person pleasure from badness, or because of the end product—power, money, love, or safety. All of these, within their correct means, are good things. It is in their incorrect pursuit that bad resides.

You cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. And as such, I fail to understand how you're trying to ascribe badness to God 1.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

This is an oversimplification. Tibetan Buddhists would not read the Bardo to the spirit of the recently deceased for several days in order to guide them to a "good" i.e. human incarnation if they did not believe in the existential heterogeneity of humanity if not its essential heterogeneity. In fact, they warn against taking an incarnation as a "god." Which should show you that Buddhist believe that humans are superior to the gods. You might want to take that into account when discussing pantheism.

Ethical problems are just as "real" to Buddhists as they are to others. They are just encouraged to empathize and see the other sides perspective as well as their own.

__________________
Louise Vale first woman to play Jane Eyre in the flickers.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue about whether my god is better than your god. First of all, I don't believe in god, so it doesn't matter which definition is the best; just which one you believe in. Secondly, it's not really the point of this thread at all; it could be a whole 'nother thread. And I feel really good about your definition, as I'm certain it's what Yoda believes as well (and most Christians too), so we should stick with it.

As for misunderstanding Jesus, I know I understand Jesus, but again, GOD 1 is just another---and, for me, much more elegant---perspective on this: "Jesus serves as our eviction notice and tells us we need to start paying the moral rent."

===

I'm pretty tired right now, so I'd rather not expound on the Euthyphro thing, but I'll simply repeat how we eventually need to establish the relationship between A) good, B) God, and C) mankind.

===

I'm a materialist. Plain and simple. I don't know what you mean by "problems", but I sense you're going to give me an ultimatum along the lines of me having to choose between either god or nihilism.

Okay... I think we've beat around enough burning bushes.

We're arguing about whether or not god exists. If you consider god as necessary for something having to do with humanity---in that materialism cannot provide for that something---then we should definitely talk about it.

===

So... as of now, this is what we're arguing from, right?

GOD 2 ≡ (Abrahamic monism) the idea that God is most definitely good—this is the claim of Christianity (in addition to Islam and Judaism). This God takes sides, loves love, and hates hate; it's a God who wants us to behave in a particular way—the moral way.

Some of these may be redundant, but we can trim later.

1. God is most definitely good—loves love, hates hate.
2. God takes sides.
3. God wants humans to behave in a moral way.
4. There are things in this world that go against his nature—goodness.
5. God makes it clear that it is up to us to "fix what is broken".

NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO ADD/DROP POSTULATES!!!!

Just gimme the go ahead and I'll try an criticize each one for flaws. However, if you want to start, I can try and write a definition of materialism and then you can attack my stuff.

What d'ya think?