I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Zarathustra]

For some people yeah but its never been an issue when it comes to my belief or doubt in either God or an afterlife.

Yeah, me neither.

It's just not a convincing argument, unless you really, really want it to be.

Even Nicodemus, who is about the most obvious atheist on here, was willing to admit its simplistic.

Kudos to him for being critically minded enough to realize and admit that, in light of his opinions on the broader question.

 

[MoneyTick]

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
ETC....

Thereto, according to biblical scripture:

GOD NEVER MADE THE EARTH!

He directed the intricacies of its formation.

Do you really think God actually came down with a hammer and a chisel and began to carve out the shape of the earth? And did he pour a glass of his Holy Water over the trenches to make oceans? Do you really think it happened in seven days? No! The solar system formed by virtue of a nebula over the course of seven billion years.

And what caused the Big Bang?

Sure, a random series of events! But on whose premises?

Who put that empty space there? Who placed that rock and hydrogen gas matter in those positions that would constitute the formation of a nebula?

Certainly, the earth had to be formed before evolution! Correct?

I think we are all confused about God. Because we refer mainly to him as a person or being. God is not such. God is a "higher power". Just like the sun - its more powerful than humanity.

There is a lot of credible information about evolution.

But why do I still believe in God?

Because evolution would have never happened without the formation of the earth by virtue of the Big Bang.

And who directed the Big Bang?

Not my grandma, not me, not Ceasar, not King David ...

A "higher power" was the director of such phenomenon.

THEREAFTER,

It is all subjective. Evolution, Biblical doctrine, etc...

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

So this thread is basically about the problem of evil and the historical anthropomorphic conceptualisation of God?

Just trying to bring things up to date for anyone just entering the tread now and not wanting to read over all the pages and pages of stuff.

I guess it depends on each person's perspective. In my mind if God does exist, then He must be virtuous because people can do evil. But my view of virtue includes freedom (i.e. free will). If a person doesn't think freedom is virtuous then they might consider God to be evil.

 

[Lark]

I guess it depends on each person's perspective. In my mind if God does exist, then He must be virtuous because people can do evil. But my view of virtue includes freedom (i.e. free will). If a person doesn't think freedom is virtuous then they might consider God to be evil.

I would concur with that, although not perhaps the consideration of virtue, freedom and free will are abused concepts, or so I think, amount a lot of the time to licentiousness and permissiveness.

However, given that free will, or at the very least a soft determinism, is an objective reality in the world it has to form some part of a divine plan if there is a God and he has one.

The last time I thought seriously about this was reading Jung and he suggested that God and man in history had a kind of reciprocal relationship, ultimately amounting to the incarnation, from this I drew the conclusion that God realised the harm which divine intervention could do. So not that he regards freedom qua freedom as virtuous but that he rues the unintentional consequences of intervention.

However more lately, reflecting upon a lot of the teachings of Jesus I think that Jesus that Gods plans, and very possibly frequent intervention, does not fit a covenent, contract or balance sheet of exchange with believers but is based upon a fairly radical hope of redemption and forgiveness of what evil action has happened. Which would be very unlike mankind. The thing about "why do earthquakes happen?" reasoning is that perhaps God cares about the earth as much as the people in it and intervenes on the level of entire eco-systems? And if this truly is the case, the horror and terror of ending life, if it is but a beginnning of life everlasting isnt something in the same order as evil actions if you see what I mean.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

alright, but then again you have to remember the rule of relativity.

Huh?

I am saying that we are incapable of dismissing either position. Because we have no way of knowing whether either position constitute "truth". For people who are neither able nor have the time, resources or the motivation to devote themselves to disciplines rigorously practiced by skeptic's to pursue an answer to this question, it serves a basic need to retain their beliefs in a prime mover, no matter how absurd or irrational it may sound to atheist's.

So skeptics should be less skeptical and believers should apply their faith moreso than they already do... Hmmm... No thanks.

In any case, I believe that the god of this thread is a false one. A god may exist though, who knows.

Adding more dimensions to a yet unsolvable question/-/Progress. You and i both know that movements antithetical to abrahamic theology have not come further then theologians to give a clear answer as to what constitutes a final truth.

What's a final truth?

please, don't go off-topic by adressing other issues.

Ahahah! Moronic.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
ETC....

Thereto, according to biblical scripture:

GOD NEVER MADE THE EARTH!

He directed the intricacies of its formation.

Do you really think God actually came down with a hammer and a chisel and began to carve out the shape of the earth? And did he pour a glass of his Holy Water over the trenches to make oceans? Do you really think it happened in seven days? No! The solar system formed by virtue of a nebula over the course of seven billion years.

And what caused the Big Bang?

Sure, a random series of events! But on whose premises?

Who put that empty space there? Who placed that rock and hydrogen gas matter in those positions that would constitute the formation of a nebula?

Certainly, the earth had to be formed before evolution! Correct?

I think we are all confused about God. Because we refer mainly to him as a person or being. God is not such. God is a "higher power". Just like the sun - its more powerful than humanity.

There is a lot of credible information about evolution.

But why do I still believe in God?

Because evolution would have never happened without the formation of the earth by virtue of the Big Bang.

And who directed the Big Bang?

Not my grandma, not me, not Ceasar, not King David ...

A "higher power" was the director of such phenomenon.

THEREAFTER,

It is all subjective. Evolution, Biblical doctrine, etc...

What. The. Fuck.

 

[Robopop]

Who placed that rock and hydrogen gas matter in those positions that would constitute the formation of a nebula?

The material collected together because of gravity.

And who directed the Big Bang?

Not my grandma, not me, not Ceasar, not King David ...

A "higher power" was the director of such phenomenon.

This is essentially a god of the gaps argument.

 

[Zarathustra]

This is essentially a god of the gaps argument.

I would think it's more of the "first mover" argument.

Or are you subsuming the "first mover" argument under the umbrella of the "god of the gaps" argument?

 

[Randomnity]

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
ETC....

Thereto, according to biblical scripture:

GOD NEVER MADE THE EARTH!

He directed the intricacies of its formation.

Do you really think God actually came down with a hammer and a chisel and began to carve out the shape of the earth? And did he pour a glass of his Holy Water over the trenches to make oceans? Do you really think it happened in seven days? No! The solar system formed by virtue of a nebula over the course of seven billion years.

And what caused the Big Bang?

Sure, a random series of events! But on whose premises?

Who put that empty space there? Who placed that rock and hydrogen gas matter in those positions that would constitute the formation of a nebula?

Certainly, the earth had to be formed before evolution! Correct?

I think we are all confused about God. Because we refer mainly to him as a person or being. God is not such. God is a "higher power". Just like the sun - its more powerful than humanity.

There is a lot of credible information about evolution.

But why do I still believe in God?

Because evolution would have never happened without the formation of the earth by virtue of the Big Bang.

And who directed the Big Bang?

Not my grandma, not me, not Ceasar, not King David ...

A "higher power" was the director of such phenomenon.

THEREAFTER,

It is all subjective. Evolution, Biblical doctrine, etc...

I see your "who made the big bang" and raise you a "who made god?"

 

[Lark]

I see your "who made the big bang" and raise you a "who made god?"

And what would that achieve?

Neither can explain origins but the idea of God is a transcendent and mysterious one so its more likely to satisfy plausibility, in so far as its expected to defy clarification or explanation, than an alternative.

 

[Sniffles]

I see your "who made the big bang" and raise you a "who made god?"

A rather silly question since God is the unmoved mover, the first cause. If somebody made God than God isn't really God, and then the question becomes who created the somebody who created "God", and then who created them as well. You're inviting infinite regress.

 

[Randomnity]

Yes, I agree. I'm saying that it's exactly as silly an 'argument' as "who made the big bang?".

So they cancel each other out, in a manner of speaking.

edit: being "transcendent and mysterious" is certainly not an argument for increased plausibility by any stretch of the imagination. That's nearly the opposite of occam's razor, in fact. I'm not sure how you would go about quantifying the plausibility of god anyway.

 

[Sniffles]

Yes, I agree. I'm saying that it's exactly as silly an 'argument' as "who made the big bang?".

So they cancel each other out, in a manner of speaking.

No they're not the same. "Who made the Big Bang?" is a legitimate metaphysical question; and we can presume the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, asked that very question more than a few times.

 

[Nicodemus]

The more interesting question is: What did god do 'all the time' before he created everything, including space and time?

 

[Lark]

Yes, I agree. I'm saying that it's exactly as silly an 'argument' as "who made the big bang?".

So they cancel each other out, in a manner of speaking.

edit: being "transcendent and mysterious" is certainly not an argument for increased plausibility by any stretch of the imagination. That's nearly the opposite of occam's razor, in fact. I'm not sure how you would go about quantifying the plausibility of god anyway.

No, you dont seem to appreciate the fundamental difference in explaining origins as a big bang or act of God, there is a difference and major logical difference, one is caused and therefore not a true explanation of origins, the other is not caused and therefore is.

Now you might be disatisfied with the divine/celestial/deity explanation but that's not to say its less plausible as an explanation of origins than a physical event which requires a trigger or prelude which escapes attention or explanation.

 

[Randomnity]

No they're not the same. "Who made the Big Bang?" is a legitimate metaphysical question; and we can presume the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, asked that very question more than a few times.

Actually, it isn't. "how did the big bang happen and what did the universe look like before that?" is a legitimate metaphysical question - the one you mentioned presupposes that it was in fact made by an entity, which isn't the only possible explanation. Not knowing the answer doesn't prove that there's a god involved! We may not even have the intellectual capacity to ever understand the true form of the universe.

Because a bacteria can't understand that the world revolved around the sun, does it mean that there's a god changing the environment from day to night?

So they are, if not the same, equivalent levels of silliness.

 

[Lark]

The more interesting question is: What did god do 'all the time' before he created everything, including space and time?

Which presupposes the existence of time doesnt it? Without sun, moon, stars or any other reference point is there such a thing as time? You sure cant track its passage, the question itself lends itself to all kinds of anthropomorphic mistakes.

 

[Lark]

Actually, it isn't. "how did the big bang happen and what did the universe look like before that?" is a legitimate metaphysical question - the one you mentioned presupposes that it was in fact made by an entity, which isn't the only possible explanation.

So they are, if not the same, equivalent levels of silliness.

There's a value judgement to suppose that either question is silly, which I'll not get into, you've not succeeded in making clear why there is equivalence though. Simply because they relate to the same question, ie origins, does not mean they are equivalent, its not a different way of phrasing the same question.

 

[Sniffles]

Actually, it isn't. "how did the big bang happen and what did the universe look like before that?" is a legitimate metaphysical question - the one you mentioned presupposes that it was in fact made by an entity, which isn't the only possible explanation.

Yes it is legitimate, you're trying to figure out who or what the first cause is and possibly its nature. I notice often in these discussions people don't so much dispute the existence of a first cause(which is necessary in order for the universe to exist), they just complain about terming the first cause "God", which is a matter of petty semantics.

Not knowing the answer doesn't prove that there's a god involved!

Who said that it was?

We may not even have the intellectual capacity to ever understand the true form of the universe.

Ironically that's the same thing St. Thomas Aquinas said; there's more than enough evidence of God's existence in the universe but man has limited capacity to understand it all.

 

[Randomnity]

I'm not going to argue since it's just going to go in circles (much like both of those questions would). There's no point.

I don't know why I even open these threads.

As tempted as I am to keep trying to explain my point because "someone is WRONG on the internet!!!!1111" I have work to do.