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

[Sniffles]

Well, he could just come forward. But It's not possible for God to come out from just over the horizon because he would have to leave the realm of the supernatural.

But why should he just come forward?

 

[EcK]

Sophistry as only a Frenchman could perform. Bravo!

At least I don't use non sequiturs.

 

[Snuggletron]

you misunderstood the question. Even if it is "rigged" why is it bad?

No, you seemed to be vaguely referring to the idea of god's limited knowledge (what was in my post you quoted). Either way, I never claimed the actual rigged nature of a god's creation was bad. The rigged nature of god's universe is a neutral necessity. That god exists outside of nature to create it (an impossibility by our usual mode of reasoning) it would have to be rigged because the schematics are all known to the god. I'm on repeat, here.

The exclusivity of god is permitted to go on because we still need a reason for reality. We don't need a sentimental reason for other supernatural beings existing, but if we did I'm sure we'd be debating them too.

 

[KDude]

Premise:

I reject religion because of The Big Picture. The Big Picture, to me, is starting chronologically at the beginning of the Universe and working your way to this point in time, scientifically of course. (Forgive me if there are any errors in the science or chronology)

Singularity --> Big Bang due to high vacuum pressure --> Stars and Galaxies form over billions of years --> About 9 billion years into the Universe the Sun of our Solar System forms --> Very shortly after, the Earth forms (.05 billion years after) --> the bombardment of earth by asteroids, meteors, etc --> 0.14 to 1.84 billion years into Earth's existence, Abiogenesis brings primitive cells into existence (on its own, no help from God needed) --> For a few billion years these primitive cells become more complex and compete for survival --> transitional forms of cells arise, the transition being single-celled to multi-celled (no help from God needed) --> Multi-celled organisms arise and begin to spread and evolve --> Precambrian --> (okay this is taking a while and I think I�m making my point, I�ll skip a bit) --> Homo Sapiens become a distinct species in the Homo Genus (we arrived this way on our own, no help from God), also a few subspecies of Homo Sapiens come about but go extinct (they came after us but died out) --> Homo Sapiens spread from Africa to the rest of the world --> We adapt differently to the environments of the world (had our species been isolated we would have branched off from each other, Asians, Caucasians, etc) --> Each culture has its own religious explanation for our origins --> (the Big Picture idea is made far enough)

Argument:

Why, after all of this, does God decide, "Homo Sapiens need to live according to my rules"? Why does God put himself in human form in some remote desert part of Earth to die for our sins that weren't committed (Adam and Eve never existed and never 'sinned' against God)? Why after all this time, with all these organisms over billions of years, does God decide that its about time for him to show himself? What happens to other organisms, when they die do they just cease to exist? Saved from hell but exempt from heaven? Why didn't he show himself to the other Highly-Conscious beings that existed in the Homo Genus, such as the Neanderthal? One could say that it is because God created us in his own image. However, evolution shows that our species needed no supernatural intervention to come into existence; we are not an exception to the theory. One could also say that because of our highly superior intelligence, God must have helped us to evolve at some point. However, there is a problem with this as well. A great example to refute this notion is as follows: A few people are locked in a room from childhood, they have a few things to keep them entertained in the room (natural things, maybe a log or some rocks), and the extent of their outside interaction with other humans is having food trays and water bowls that are slid inside of the room through a slit in the wall. Now, how �intelligent� do you think these people would grow up to be? They might develop a primitive grunting language, make up some games with the play toys in the room, or even come to worship the slit in the wall where the food is pushed through. Our society and the knowledge that is passed onto us from past generations is what distinguishes us from other species.

What about people that never hear the word of Jesus, are they forgiven for their �sin�, you would think that if he was a decent and intelligent God he would show himself to everyone at once to prove his existence? Were this God to be truly Benevolent, it would show Mercy to those who did not know of his existence, it would not send the un-knowing into damnation because of the God�s inability to show itself to them. But what about the people who do know about this God but still refuse to believe in it and don�t adhere to its rules? One may say that God would deliver Justice upon these people by sending them to hell, however, these people are in the same position that the un-knowing people were: They had no reason to believe. God, being the All-Knowing creator of the Universe, had to have known that these people would choose not to believe, and yet he didn�t give them a reason to believe, they do not deserve to be sent to hell, that would be Un-Just of God.


Why does this God even make a heaven and hell for us in the first place? The place that we go to is predetermined. God is Omnipotent, All-knowing, and Outside of Time itself; he would already know where we would go to by definition. We have no choice. If we had a choice in what to believe, then the God wouldn't be God, because he wouldn't Know our every thought and what we would decide so that would make him Not All-knowing, A God that doesn't know everything isn't God. If God exists outside of Time, then our existence means nothing to him, the entire history of the Universe could be over in the snap of the finger to God, it is like he would have a Tivo-remote, he could rewind, pause, fast forward, skip to the end, everything predetermined by the show he was watching that he created, why would he care for a species that arose on earth for a fraction of existence in the history of the Universe? All of that makes no sense though, because the concept of Time is being applied to God! A God outside of Time cannot exist in this way, it is literally un-thinkable, our brains are wired to understand the concept of time, where there is no time it is non-existence to us, our consciousness makes up time, if the atoms in my body were scattered somewhere else in the Universe they would be indifferent to time's existence, they would interact with time but time wouldn't Mean anything to them. If God existed in his own sense of Time outside our Universe (whatever "outside our universe" may mean) wouldn't he have to be physically comprised of something to exist? Our only explanation for Consciousness is a highly developed brain, how could God be Conscious if he has no physical form? If God were Physically comprised of something, in a sense of time, would he be outside our Universe? Wouldn't those things be applied to Our Universe? Saying that God has no physical form, yet is conscious, and in a state of time where it would chronologically witness the events of Our Universe, makes no logical sense. And besides it making no sense, it does not answer any questions, �Magic man Poofed it� does not solve a question, it creates More questions. For instance, one can ask �If God created our Universe, Who created God?� This may seem clich�, however it is still valid. The reason it is valid is because the usual answer to this question is: �God is Eternal, he has no creator and has existed forever.� However, this is not a valid answer for this reason: Eternity is a concept that is confined to a sense of time. The definition of Eternity: �1. Infinite time; duration with out beginning or end. 2. Eternal existence.� One can see that the answer �God is eternal� is not a valid answer to the question; the answer is actually false given the definition of God. God, being outside of the confines of Time, cannot be applied to the word Eternal or Eternity; the word itself actually makes little sense and is of little use to explain anything at all. So, it has been proven that the question: �Who created God?� is still valid. Why then, the need for a Creator, if it can be said there is an infinite line of creators creating each creator?

I have no reason to believe in God via personal experience. I have no reason to believe in God via the logic that is instilled in my consciousness, if I had a different thought process (different sense of logic) then maybe I would.

 

[Beorn]

No, you seemed to be vaguely referring to the idea of god's limited knowledge (what was in my post you quoted). Either way, I never claimed the actual rigged nature of a god's creation was bad. The rigged nature of god's universe is a neutral necessity. That god exists outside of nature to create it (an impossibility by our usual mode of reasoning) it would have to be rigged because the schematics are all known to the god. I'm on repeat, here.

You didn't say it was bad, you said it was sadistic and insane... insane in the membrane to be specific. This seemed to be a type of value judgement. I was curious about the basis for your judgement.

 

[Snuggletron]

You didn't say it was bad, you said it was sadistic and insane... insane in the membrane to be specific. This seemed to be a type of value judgement. I was curious about the basis for your judgement.

oh, the membrane. Whatever was using specific examples of this in biblical texts, and I was sort of expanding on that. The basis is a contradiction of being a god who sets a moral standard, then goes and indirectly places the teachings of these moral standards in the hands of what appear to be regular joes who are documented about by many other people who are biased in their own ways whether through second-hand knowledge or personality traits, keeps most in the dark, chooses to be represented abhorrently by certain priests and establishments (not all are 'bad', I know), gives us many different flavors of gods to choose from, and then punishes those who do not repent for original sin or find a ways to following him once they become aware of his existence. A god who was not sadistic would not put those he loves through a confusing gauntlet of faith like that. I guess it is a value judgement, but it seeks consistency.

 

[Beorn]

oh, the membrane. Whatever was using specific examples of this in biblical texts, and I was sort of expanding on that. The basis is a contradiction of being a god who sets a moral standard, then goes and indirectly places the teachings of these moral standards in the hands of what appear to be regular joes who are documented about by many other people who are biased in their own ways whether through second-hand knowledge or personality traits, keeps most in the dark, chooses to be represented abhorrently by certain priests and establishments (not all are 'bad', I know), gives us many different flavors of gods to choose from, and then punishes those who do not repent for original sin or find a ways to following him once they become aware of his existence. A god who was not sadistic would not put those he loves through a confusing gauntlet of faith like that. I guess it is a value judgement, but it seeks consistency.

The contradiction only exists if you believe that the omnipotence and omniscience of God is not compatible with human voluntary choice.
If humans are capable of voluntary choice than there is no contradiction and no inconsistency.
Voluntary choice being defined as the ability to act according to one's desires and nature.

In such a world being able to stop something is not the same as causing it.

 

[Tamske]

During the years, my belief in god (any god) has dwindled to zero.

I think everyone, believer or not, faces the universe with some awe. There are things just too great for us humans to understand or too awful to bear. There is a sun and a moon. There is water which is a fluid at room temperature, while the heavier molecule of CO_2 is not. There are Chilean miners trapped and rescued. There are New Zealand miners trapped who have perished.

The main difference between believers and non-believers is this: believers think there is some consciousness and purpose to all this. There is a great being who understands all this and cares for us, provided we believe in him and obey his rules.
Non-believers think the universe is indifferent.

I'm an atheist now, carrying some fond memories of Christianity. No hard feelings there. But you can't remain a Christian (even if you'd like to, to be together with all those nice people) if you've lost your belief in a god! My main problem?
- God is allmighty (or at least more powerful than any human)
- God likes us
- God wants us to believe in him

But you know what? If some person is drowning, I would go and rescue him - whether he believes in me or not. I'm a human. I'm not allmighty, I'm even not very strong. I'm not perfectly good. But somehow, I'm either more powerful or better than God.
If a human lover never returns your calls, you're going to doubt his love. If a God, who supposedly loves humans, never returns your calls... you just have to keep on believing. God - you know the deal, right? You tell me what's exactly inside a black hole and I'll believe in you and tell everybody about you.

 

[Ginkgo]

Most of this conversation seems to focus on the implausibility of God, and not the impossibility of God.

Also, the OP contains alot of fuzzy logic.

 

[Snuggletron]

The contradiction only exists if you believe that the omnipotence and omniscience of God is not compatible with human voluntary choice.
If humans are capable of voluntary choice than there is no contradiction and no inconsistency.
Voluntary choice being defined as the ability to act according to one's desires and nature.

The desires and nature that were created purely by god. The contradiction is still there, you can't make-believe it away. Since we're talking about god in Christianity, this is pretty important.

 

[Sniffles]

Paradox is at the heart of Christianity. Take the Incarnation as the most famous example.

 

[Arclight]

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

~Robert Heinlein

This quote illustrates the difference between the concept of God and the concept of religion.

God is God.. religion seeks to humanize the concept of God.
Once humanity starts to study and rationalize anything at all, from that point onward the concept of God is only that of human thinking.
Humanity does not have to capacity to fully comprehend God. So humans fill in the blanks with human qualities that serve only their concepts and means.
Distilling religion to it's purest form leaves you with the rawest form of politics..

Religion without God, is philosophy, morality and ethics which on their own, work well within the scope of human capacity.
Adding a God to the mix corrupts humanity in it's quest for enlightenment.

God is not authority.. That is a human construct.
God is spirituality and connection to life beyond human capacity, We can sense it, intuit it and draw from it. We should stop short at trying to define it universally.
God is beyond human intellect.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I have found endless comfort and (much NEEDED) humility in my belief that something greater than myself exists.

Regardless of whether it exists or not, I am grateful that my belief in a higher power has allowed me to be a better person.

Here is a quote from Futurama that I feel applies.

God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God Entity: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

 

[Sniffles]

Seems Plantinga addresses some of the questions raised here:
[youtube="JSaaYTKIE70"]Plantinga[/youtube]

 

[Beorn]

The desires and nature that were created purely by god. The contradiction is still there, you can't make-believe it away. Since we're talking about god in Christianity, this is pretty important.

The bible makes it clear that sin entered the world through a combination of human decision and satan. It is very clear that God is not the author of evil even if the fall of satan is never fully explained.

Even if there is seemingly a contradiction, why is something that seems inconsistent to you a reason to reject God?

 

[Mole]

The Evolution of the Mytho-Poetic

I prefer to see God as part of my mytho-poetic world.

The mytho-poetic world had its start in child sacrifice. And slowly abandoned child sacrifice for child abuse. And more quickly abandoned child abuse for the obedient child.

And today my mytho-poetic world is leaving the obedient child behind and rather helping the child realise their life goals.

And each stage of child rearing has its own God.

The sacrificial form had the God of Abraham, the abusive form had the God of the Old Testament, the obedient form had the God of the Book, and the helping form has the God of the Enlightenment.

So just as the Continents and Oceans have evolved, and just as the DNA of every living creature has evolved, so the mytho-poetic world has evolved from sacrifice, to abuse, to obedience, to helping.

 

[BlueScreen]

A few points:

If God has no influence on reality, then within reality he is irrelevant (except maybe to people who believe in afterlives beyond reality when their time in reality ends)

If God influences reality must that influence be detectable, and how do we decide it is caused by a God and not just a law of nature? Why should God follow/not follow any pattern we can detect?

Many people overrate science. Suppose we live surrounded by random noise. As we grow we see patterns in this noise. As we grow more we notice that some patterns always repeat, and some only sometimes repeat. As we look at it more we notice they only sometimes repeat because there is something different happening in each situation. We compare these situations and see more patterns. We formalise how these patterns relate to each other. We become confident at predicting outcomes given certain actions. The thing is, everything we don't see a pattern in is still just noise to us. It is random occurrences, chances, coincidence. When you only play with representations of reality, you can get a long way ahead of yourself. You start to believe that the things we see patterns in are all there is. They are just the limit we can predict to, the stuff we can do science on (so far).

 

[Tamske]

Most of this conversation seems to focus on the implausibility of God, and not the impossibility of God. .

Of course. You can not "prove" that something doesn't exist.
You try to prove there is no little teapot on orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Especially if the teapot is invisible.

How do you decide whether something is real or not? You can try using only logic. I mean only logic, no observation. Then you can prove that, if "square root", "two" and "rational number" take on the meanings defined by the English language, the sentence "the square root of two is a rational number" is false.
But you can't prove there is a moon. You can't prove there exist such things like earth, water, humans, oaks and mosquitoes. For those things you need observation. If we would talk about the existence of the moon, for example... I think most people would agree there exists a moon. You can do a little philosophical exercise and say everything in our observation is only an illusion and so the moon doesn't exist. But. For most things, people decide between "existence" and "non-existence" by observation. You can all say observation is an illusion, but it would do you quite good to run away from a lion illusion, you know.
In the same vein, I guess everybody will agree there is no second moon made from a pure diamond orbiting behind the first one. Is it impossible? No, only very, very improbable. After all, we've been there and we didn't see a diamond moon. We measured the effect of the moon's gravity on the seas and there is only effect from one moon.

But for some reason, if you use the same arguments for a god as for a diamond moon, suddenly it's not enough anymore. You've got to prove impossibility, not improbability.
I'm of the opinion it should be the other way around. That god claims he's the boss. He wants me to shout every week I believe in him. He wants me to fast during a few months. I don't really know what he wants with my sex life because his messengers (who are all human) contradict each other AND contradict observation. If he wants me to do all this, he has to be a bit more probable than "as improbable as a diamond moon". Actually, anyone who wants to boss me around, has to be as probable as the first moon. Or as probable as my human boss, who has every right to boss me around.

 

[Ginkgo]

A few points:

If God has no influence on reality, then within reality he is irrelevant (except maybe to people who believe in afterlives beyond reality when their time in reality ends)

If God influences reality must that influence be detectable, and how do we decide it is caused by a God and not just a law of nature? Why should God follow/not follow any pattern we can detect?

Many people overrate science. Suppose we live surrounded by random noise. As we grow we see patterns in this noise. As we grow more we notice that some patterns always repeat, and some only sometimes repeat. As we look at it more we notice they only sometimes repeat because there is something different happening in each situation. We compare these situations and see more patterns. We formalise how these patterns relate to each other. We become confident at predicting outcomes given certain actions. The thing is, everything we don't see a pattern in is still just noise to us. It is random occurrences, chances, coincidence. When you only play with representations of reality, you can get a long way ahead of yourself. You start to believe that the things we see patterns in are all there is. They are just the limit we can predict to, the stuff we can do science on (so far).

I think miracles are the extraordinary things that don't abide by our sense of normality. In some cases, they may not abide by the natural laws we've accounted for.

Spinoza rejected miracles because they intervened upon what was known to be possible. However, if there exists phenomena outside of what we currently know, then dogmatically insisting that those miraculous things do not occur is quite limiting. Our imagination would be smothered as it gave its final yelp, trying to break free.

Since man is an imaginative creature, I think that confining himself the way Spinoza did would drive him to tears.

 

[Tamske]

In some cases, they may not abide by the natural laws we've accounted for.

That only means we've got to make up better laws. It means we don't understand everything of the universe - which is quite normal, actually, because we're just a tiny part of it. We're chess pieces trying to understand the game. It doesn't mean there is a conscious being purposely doing things which are impossible according to our laws of physics.
The most awesome and craziest thing is that there are such laws. We can almost with 100% certainty assume that mass will attract each other according to the law of gravity. We even relied with our lives on that law when we sent a rocket to the moon - and it didn't fail us!
Miracles? No... just an incomplete understanding. Which does NOT take out the wonder from our universe. After all, a rainbow is still beautiful even if you know how it's made.