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

[IZthe411]

Romans 1:20 (New International Version, ©2010)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I don't think people are looking hard enough- or are looking too hard- you feel me?

But then some people choose to deny a very very fundamental need within themselves.

 

[IZthe411]

So the holy ghost did not instruct those men to write their respective parts of the bible?

I'd use the word 'move' more so than instruct, but you are correct........

God doesn't need to prove anything, he chooses to do so because he knows that human beings need it.

 

[EcK]

I don't think people are looking hard enough- or are looking too hard- you feel me?

But then some people choose to deny a very very fundamental need within themselves.

Wow, just. Wow.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

It is possible to use subjective experiences to create a definition. With love most people simply fail to agree to any definition. I could define love as I enjoy spending time with someone, or I am happier when with them.

The question of love has much more weight to it than simply agreeing on a definition. I mean a scientist could give a definition and then answer "yes" or "no" about its existence, but that would totally miss the point of the question. When people want to know about love then they aren't really interested in what a scientist has to say. But there are countless songs, poems, movies, books, etc... made about love which people voraciously devour. That is because people are not interested in the objective part about love like definitions and chemicals. Instead they are interested in a specific type of subjective experience.

That can work as a definition for God. The problems come in when people make further assumptions on that and treat these assumptions as fact. Proving a definition is simple, it is making use of that definition accurately that is more difficult.

Treating assumptions as fact is a different issue. Because if these are hard facts, then they can be taught in a school, which many believers do not want. Separate issue.

People are discussing the possibility of a God that impacts their world. People in such threads aren't discussing about their personal God that does nothing but watches them and rejoices in their success. They are trying to talk about some universal God that changes the world. It is by applying that their idea of God changes the world that they give attention and meaning to it.

That is part of it, but there are also deists, agnostics and atheists that join the discussion. And in my experience the typical atheist talks about God much more than the typical believer. There are lots of atheists out there that seem obsessed with God.

I can prove love exists. It's coded by chemicals in our blood.

Equating love to chemicals in the blood is like equating The Grapes of Wrath to ink on a page. There is much more to the experience of love than the chemicals. Otherwise people could just buy the chemicals and not have to worry about finding a suitable partner. Likewise if you open The Grapes of Wrath and simply study the ink instead of reading the book, then you've completely missed the point. Also there is much more to a spiritual life than finding evidence for God's existence. Love is meant to be an experience. Reading The Grapes of Wrath is meant to be experience. Faith in God is meant to be an experience. To reduce any of these things to a scientific study completely misses the point.

Of course the existence of God is more important than the existence of that stupid teapot. After all, no wars are fought in the name of the teapot. But existence doesn't depend on importance of the question. The reasoning is the same.

The reasoning may be the same, but the motivation is different. Much more money is spent looking for a cure to Aids instead looking for a cure to the common cold. That is because the cure to Aids is much more important. It's vital we keep looking for a cure even if it's not possible that one can ever be found. Likewise questions about a transcendent entity like God are universal. It is vitally important that we pursue the answer even if the answer can never be found.

We haven't observed a god. And the people who claim they have: please tell me how to do it. I'd like to meet the god too!

I find I observe God by praying with faith. Your miles may vary.

 

[EcK]

I find I observe God by praying with faith. Your miles may vary.

I observe unicorns the same way.








And then people came up with empiricism.

"# Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."

It's not that you live that you won't die. It's not that you can function and that alot of people believe in similar things that they're not all clinicaly delusional.

 

[IZthe411]

Wow, just. Wow.

Care to elaborate?

 

[EcK]

I'd use the word 'move' more so than instruct, but you are correct........

God doesn't need to prove anything, he chooses to do so because he knows that human beings need it.

I'm reminded of shanon entropy plots about the complexity of communication and what it could entail about communication with aliens species when data analysis suggests entropies(predictability in other words) of too different orders.
Then again it's a matter of sampling sizes. Though I don't think that's the issue here

Basically I don't think there can be any work efficient meaningful communication between us. From my perspective at least.

 

[IZthe411]

I'm reminded of shanon entropy plots about the complexity of communication and what it could entail about communication with aliens species when data analysis suggests entropies(predictability in other words) of too different orders.
Then again it's a matter of sampling sizes. Though I don't think that's the issue here

Basically I don't think there can be any work efficient meaningful communication between us. From my perspective at least.

Suit yourself.

 

[Nicodemus]

God doesn't need to prove anything, he chooses to do so because he knows that human beings need it.

If he exists, he made them so that they 'need it'. Had he made them otherwise, there would have been no 'need' for such a belief and, consequently, such a book. So he created himself slaves and admirers. He wanted you to have that 'need'. Then he left the book for you. Coincidence? In the world he created, in the world he can change whenever and however he pleases?

Do you find it plausible that an almighty, perfect god creates himself a race of needy slaves to entertain himself (for which a truthfully perfect being had no need, since perfection does not require anything) and then offers as proof of his existence, as fulfillment of their deepest 'need' nothing but a book prone to be misread?

You say he wanted you to have the free will to choose whether or not to believe in him. Why, then, did he instill into you that awful 'need' to believe?

 

[IZthe411]

If he exists, he made them so that they 'need it'. Had he made them otherwise, there would have been no 'need' for such a belief and, consequently, such a book. So he created himself slaves and admirers. He wanted you to have that 'need'. Then he left the book for you. Coincidence? In the world he created, in the world he can change whenever and however he pleases?

Do you find it plausible that an almighty, perfect god creates himself a race of needy slaves to entertain himself (for which a truthfully perfect being had no need, since perfection does not require anything) and then offers as proof of his existence, as fulfillment of their deepest 'need' nothing but a book prone to be misread?

You say he wanted you to have the free will to choose whether or not to believe in him. Why, then, did he instill into you that awful 'need' to believe?

Actually God's perfect in the absolute sense. His creation is 'perfect' to the degree relative to his own. So we will always have 'needs' because we aren't as self sufficient as people would like to think about themselves.

He created human beings to be inherently needy. No one man is an island. Like we need food, water, shelter, companionship, etc.

I can't answer the question of why He made us to need him, but it makes sense that He would expect acknowledgement of who He is in his intellgent creation's lives.

I think the term slave is extreme. Are you a slave to oxygen?

If you look at what he did with Adam & Eve, all he asked them to do is not eat from one tree, as a symbol of their acknowledgement of Him.

It makes sense if you realize how he operates and that he doesn't need to be over top of you like some cop. The free will is for you to use, at the same time accept what comes with how you use it. Adam, Eve, and the Devil all chose to use their free will to not serve God. Other Angels, Jesus Christ, and other human beings mentioned in the Bible chose to recognize God in their lives, and he has and will reward those for their sticking to his side of the issue.

 

[Nicodemus]

You have not answered my first and second question.

Actually God's perfect in the absolute sense.

Then he did not create you.

His creation is 'perfect' to the degree relative to his own. So we will always have 'needs' because we aren't as self sufficient as people would like to think about themselves.

He created human beings to be inherently needy. No one man is an island. Like we need food, water, shelter, companionship, etc.

I can't answer the question of why He made us to need him, but it makes sense that He would expect acknowledgement of who He is in his intellgent creation's lives.

How does that make sense? Your god is not ESFP.

I think the term slave is extreme. Are you a slave to oxygen?

Oxygen did not create me to adore it and work for its approval.

If you look at what he did with Adam & Eve, all he asked them to do is not eat from one tree, as a symbol of their acknowledgement of Him.

It makes sense if you realize how he operates and that he doesn't need to be over top of you like some cop. The free will is for you to use, at the same time accept what comes with how you use it. Adam, Eve, and the Devil all chose to use their free will to not serve God. Other Angels, Jesus Christ, and other human beings mentioned in the Bible chose to recognize God in their lives, and he has and will reward those for their sticking to his side of the issue.

God is all-knowing, so he knew what Adam and Eve would do. You cannot invent the game, the rules, the players and then blame them for crossing the finishing line.

 

[IZthe411]

You have not answered my first and second question. I'll go look at them and answer them. In the meantime:


Then he did not create you. Why not?

How does that make sense? Your god is not ESFP. How does it not make sense, to instill a community need among people and their environment? Makes perfect sense.


Oxygen did not create me to adore it and work for its approval. God didn't create you for that sole purpose either. You are making it appear like it's such a chore in your life to take out some time and recognize your source of life. He's not asking for much, although it seems like it's more than you are willing to give.

God is all-knowing, so he knew what Adam and Eve would do. You cannot invent the game, the rules, the players and then blame them for crossing the finishing line. Misconception. God is all knowing, but like anybody else, has the ability to choose not to use what he knows. He doesn't use his foreknowledge. He's not human, he's not limited. He gave you free will. Makes no sense for him to have your outcome already figured out yet require that you do things according to his guidelines.

You sound real critical and bitter man...

..........

 

[IZthe411]

If he exists, he made them so that they 'need it'. Had he made them otherwise, there would have been no 'need' for such a belief and, consequently, such a book. So he created himself slaves and admirers. He wanted you to have that 'need'. Then he left the book for you. Coincidence? In the world he created, in the world he can change whenever and however he pleases?

The book actually came after Adam and Eve messed up. The book states that if Adam and Eve mess up, they die. Well they did just that. Since they didn't have any offspring at that point, pretty much any little ones that came along had the same outcome. Instead of making the whole species suffer for the actions of their parents, he made a way out for the the innocent, since they didn't get a change to choose for themselves. The book spells out the events that led up to that way, and is for the benefit of those who came after the way left the scene. The book lets one know they have that need, and that the need can be easily satisfied with accurate knowledge and some humility. The book also lets you know that changes have been made, although to the naked eye it doesn't appear that way.

He could have made them without that need, but then they would have just went on and paid him no mind, showing no appreciation for what he did. It would suck if you put effort into making a gift for somebody, and they don't say thank you or show you any regard for what you've done, wouldn't it. Well I'm sure he feels the same way you would, so he created us with a need to want to know him. It's beautiful when you recognize that need and it's satisfied.

 

[EcK]

I personally prefered the harry potter books.

 

[Mole]

Print and Imprint

The question of love has much more weight to it than simply agreeing on a definition. I mean a scientist could give a definition and then answer "yes" or "no" about its existence, but that would totally miss the point of the question. When people want to know about love then they aren't really interested in what a scientist has to say. But there are countless songs, poems, movies, books, etc... made about love which people voraciously devour. That is because people are not interested in the objective part about love like definitions and chemicals. Instead they are interested in a specific type of subjective experience.

Treating assumptions as fact is a different issue. Because if these are hard facts, then they can be taught in a school, which many believers do not want. Separate issue.

That is part of it, but there are also deists, agnostics and atheists that join the discussion. And in my experience the typical atheist talks about God much more than the typical believer. There are lots of atheists out there that seem obsessed with God.

Equating love to chemicals in the blood is like equating The Grapes of Wrath to ink on a page. There is much more to the experience of love than the chemicals. Otherwise people could just buy the chemicals and not have to worry about finding a suitable partner. Likewise if you open The Grapes of Wrath and simply study the ink instead of reading the book, then you've completely missed the point. Also there is much more to a spiritual life than finding evidence for God's existence. Love is meant to be an experience. Reading The Grapes of Wrath is meant to be experience. Faith in God is meant to be an experience. To reduce any of these things to a scientific study completely misses the point.

The reasoning may be the same, but the motivation is different. Much more money is spent looking for a cure to Aids instead looking for a cure to the common cold. That is because the cure to Aids is much more important. It's vital we keep looking for a cure even if it's not possible that one can ever be found. Likewise questions about a transcendent entity like God are universal. It is vitally important that we pursue the answer even if the answer can never be found.

I find I observe God by praying with faith. Your miles may vary.

"The Grapes of Wrath" is effective propaganda. "The Grapes of Wrath", is not history.

Of course propaganda is neither true nor false, rather it is plausible or implausible. And, "The Grapes of Wrath", is plausible, so is good propaganda.

But it also turns out that, "The Grapes of Wrath", is not true.

So, "The Grapes of Wrath", is good propaganda but bad fact.

"The Grapes of Wrath", is part of the mythos of the USA just as, "The New Testament", is part of the mythos of Christianity. And unsurprisingly both have a common theme.

And of course, "The Grapes of Wrath", is printed, while love is imprinted by the hormone, oxytocin.

 

[Nicodemus]

Why not?

Because for that which is perfect there cannot be any reason to create, there cannot be any action. Action implies a goal. If you are perfect, you have no goals: everything already is in its proper place.

How does it not make sense, to instill a community need among people and their environment? Makes perfect sense.

We are talking about the alleged need to believe in a god.

God didn't create you for that sole purpose either. You are making it appear like it's such a chore in your life to take out some time and recognize your source of life. He's not asking for much, although it seems like it's more than you are willing to give.

There is not much else for him in this game besides adoration and amusement.

Misconception. God is all knowing, but like anybody else, has the ability to choose not to use what he knows. He doesn't use his foreknowledge.

Why would he do that? An entirely useless experiment he could avoid altogether by simply using his foreknowledge?

He gave you free will. Makes no sense for him to have your outcome already figured out yet require that you do things according to his guidelines.

Indeed.

You sound real critical and bitter man...

You are welcome.

He could have made them without that need, but then they would have just went on and paid him no mind, showing no appreciation for what he did. It would suck if you put effort into making a gift for somebody, and they don't say thank you or show you any regard for what you've done, wouldn't it. Well I'm sure he feels the same way you would, so he created us with a need to want to know him. It's beautiful when you recognize that need and it's satisfied.

If he deliberately created us with that need, why did he leave nothing but an odd book behind to inform us of all the things we ought to know? Why is that book not enough for me to believe? I am the lock, why does the key designed to open me fail to accomplish its only purpose?

Your god is quite vain, too. I doubt many theologians would support this description.

 

[Stanton Moore]

"The Grapes of Wrath" is effective propaganda. "The Grapes of Wrath", is not history.

Of course propaganda is neither true nor false, rather it is plausible or implausible. And, "The Grapes of Wrath", is plausible so is good propaganda.

But it also turns out that, "The Grapes of Wrath", is not true.

So, "The Grapes of Wrath", is good propaganda but bad fact.

"The Grapes of Wrath", is part of the mythos of the USA just as, "The New Testament", is part of the mythos of Christianity. And unsurprisingly both have a common theme.

And of course, "The Grapes of Wrath", is printed, while love is imprinted by the hormone, oxytocin.

I suppose you would then argue that all art is by nature propaganda?
The comparisons you draw are frequently nonsensical. The problem with shoe-horning poetic language into discourse, is that it fails as poetry and as discourse.

 

[IZthe411]

Because for that which is perfect there cannot be any reason to create, there cannot be any action. Action implies a goal. If you are perfect, you have no goals: everything already is in its proper place. He created because He is love and wanted other beings to enjoy what he had the ability to provide.

We are talking about the alleged need to believe in a god. If God is part of your community. He's not some impersonal thing sitting in the corner watching as you and your friends play.

There is not much else for him in this game besides adoration and amusement. His name's at stake. That's pretty big one would think? The Devil made some implications about His right to rule over human beings. At the same time, he implied that each of us, if it came between God and our own lives, we'd deny God.

Why would he do that? An entirely useless experiment he could avoid altogether by simply using his foreknowledge? Then what's the point of allowing you to live? See the first point. He could have destroyed those two, and the devil, and started over, or just let it be, but he chose not to. Aren't you glad you're alive and he's giving you a chance to make a choice?

Indeed.


You are welcome.


If he deliberately created us with that need, why did he leave nothing but an odd book behind to inform us about all the things we ought to know? Why is that book not enough for me to believe? I am the lock, why does the key designed to open me fail to accomplish its only purpose? This questions says more about you than it does the book. Have you really asked Him to help you understand it? Have you even read it, or basing your opinions on what others have said about it? You could be letting your eternal future play out based on somebody else's opinion. He hates people who aren't humble and actually makes it impossible for you to understand what you are reading. If you are sincerely interested in getting satisfying answers to your questions, ask him to help you understand.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Your god is quite vain, too. I doubt many theologians would support this description. Your opinion.

..............

 

[Mole]

Faith and Critique

You sound real critical and bitter man...

As children we necessarily take things on faith as our survival depends on it. But as we mature we discover our critical faculties and critique the faith of our childhood.

So critique is of a higher order than faith.

However those who find their faith is threatened by maturity, will lash out with personal insults.

And such insults are not only against the rules here and may lead to banning, but are a sign of immaturity.

 

[IZthe411]

As children we necessarily take things on faith as our survival depends on it. But as we mature we discover our critical faculties and critique the faith of our childhood.

So critique is of a higher order than faith.

However those who find their faith is threatened by maturity, will lash out with personal insults.

And such insults are not only against the rules here and may lead to banning, but are a sign of immaturity.

That's not an insult, dude. Chill.