Either one exists or it doesn't. Either way, the situation is the same. If there is a god, the fair assumption is that this god is indeed aware, and turns a blind eye toward corruption. If a god exists, then the case has been made that it is a cowardly god. No amount of chastising can change that. Why blame the people?
If people are to blame, it is for believing in such a pathetic fairy-tale as opposed to embracing reality. The scenario, in which a cowardly god runs away from taking action against corruption, is supported by evidence all over the world. What kind of action should god take? Don't ask me! I am not a god.
Well, I appreciate your input William. I'm not really trying to accomplish much, beyond initiating a meaningful exchange here. I don't mean to offend anyone directly, and I wasn't aware that you guys already had it all figured out. I've assumed that there are a number of bright minds here, and that the ones who believe in a higher power would supply the bulk of the feedback.
But, I've already heard these responses before, and I'm not very impressed. In fact the only one who has actually addressed my sound argument, as it stands, is NeitherExtreme. He or she suggested that this hypothetical god could be characterized by something else, such as "indifference, curiosity, sadistic pleasure, or maybe something more noble...". Unfortunately, most of those are not great examples of critical thinking, except for the last one. I'm waiting for a sign of rational thought or deductive reasoning to support that, though, in place of assumptions.
This is a serious topic and, depending on the truth, could be the most important consideration in each of our lives. I know it's tough to avoid taking personally the criticism of something so dear. The point is that it could very well be a scandal, and a grave one at that. To deflect careful consideration over something so poignant is an irresponsible approach to life itself, IMHO. It's clear that most people don't give this issue the time of day, much less the concern that it deserves. I expected a bit more here, to be honest.
You make some interesting points. But, we're talking about whether or not this god has shown enough to be trusted. I mean, even if the f#@ker spent every single day with us, walking around or playing pool, would that be enough to trust him as an honest deity. Would that be enough to conclude the we are all going to heaven if we just do as he says? The answer is NO. Even that situation would demand an almost undue amount of faith. So, for some schmuck of a deity to throw a bunch of books out there for us to read is simply assinine. Or don't you agree?
Would that be enough to conclude the we are all going to heaven if we just do as he says? The answer is NO.
Cowardly is an adjective typically applied to animals: God is not an animal; why characterize God with animal labels? At best you might argue that such labels are personifications. That sounds more appropriate than suggesting that a transcendent God can be accurately described with animal labels.
Again, what is it you are trying to accomplish? Using this post as an example, you have totally ignored anything I have to say and then continue on with your rhetoric as you have done with every other poster who has genuinely offered their input. Good luck in finding any critical thought as long as your discourse is strictly one way. Oh, and by the way when you do have a chance to play pool with God, find out what the weight of his cue is and if he play's "ball in hand". Now that's critical thinking? Hmmm?
William
Actually I absolutely agree with you. (I know, I'm shocked too.) Here is the heart of the matter,
If I thought, even for a moment, that I have to do something in order to get to Heaven then I'd come to the same conclusion as you, God is an a-hole. But if God exists, and if what Christ said is true, that God is our father, then I know that I don't have to earn my place in Heaven. How do I know this? Because I am also a father, and I know that if I had a paradise ready for my children to enter, I would not tell them that they could only enter if they do what I say. So am I to conclude that God is a crueller and more demanding father than I am? I don't think so. So I don't pay any heed whatsoever to people that tell me that I have to do anything to get to Heaven.
Solace, I sincerely respect your creative perspective on this. To me, it makes more sense than the world of information out there. And it's clear to me why people devise their own truths.
As you know, the fundamentalists would say that there is only one true way to heaven (at least for americans) and that is thru jesus christ. What do you say to that?
William, assume there is a finite god, for christ sake. This isn't Whack-a-Mole. This is Life. And, assuming there is a god, there is also no evidence of it. Why?
[INDENT]1. There could be a greater power that calls itself a god to trick everyone into subservience (i.e. slavery).
2. There could be a true god that is also a coward.
3. It could all be a lie, in which case, you would be forfeiting your single chance for a true life.
[/INDENT]In no case here, would observance of a god (let alone worship) be in order. And in all cases, your calling would be an obvious one.
(I had philosophers pegged a little differently. It seems like everything has to be spelled out.)
What makes you think that god is not an animal?
This is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, is there anything out there that indicates this, whether it be scripture, art, science? If so, I would like to know about it.
Thanks, for spelling it out for me. Really.
William, I have no need to patronize you or anyone else. You sound like you care to help, and I could use a little rational feedback. But, I'm not likely to gain much from anyone who speaks more from the heart than from the mind. Believe me, I have a big heart. I just can't get past the deficiency in god's approach. So, please bear with me...
William, assume there is a finite god, for christ sake. This isn't Whack-a-Mole. This is Life. And, assuming there is a god, there is also no evidence of it. Why? Because understanding God doesn't come all the easy. ASSUMPTION Considering the universe is arguably 14 billion years old and we, human beings have been around, say arguably 5,000 years. Just taking that alone into consideration, we can easily conclude there is a lot we "don't" know or understand. FALSE But you are right, we have the freedom to assume anything we want to.
TRUE...and thats what usually messes things up for us. We can assume or imagine all sorts of scenarios for god and his intent. Let's call it a stalemate. What we do have is evidence...evidence of things that do lead to particular conclusions. No, they don't necessarily give us all the answers we'd like, and they're not as glamorous as the things we can pretend. But they give plenty...enough to put things in true perspective.
1. There could be a greater power that calls itself a god to trick everyone into subservience (i.e. slavery). Absolute human folly to assume such of a God. It's not an assumption. It's a strict possiblility. Man does such things as he has done with some religions to enslave man. To assume it is the malicious work of a God is grasping at straws to protect the ego and "it's" assumed omnipotence. That's certainly not my intent. Sure it's possible that crimes against humanity are the work of humans. But it's not very likely, and I will explain why at an appropriate time. It is also a possibility that god is indeed malicious. And, from an investigative standpoint, that possibility cannot be ruled out just because it doesn't feel good. "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the solution." (quoted loosely of Arthur Conan Doyle, I think).
2. There could be a true god that is also a coward. Then of course "it" wouldn't be a God, would it? Depends on what a god is. An omnipotent "entity" would be understanding. What could it possible be afraid of? Again, there is no veritable showing of omnipotence (and I don't believe it is stated in the bible). What could a god be afraid of? death? justice? a more powerful god? failure? there's more...
3. It could all be a lie, in which case, you would be forfeiting your single chance for a true life. True life? You call our existence truth? Not at all. Not yet, at least. (See list) what list?You've got to be kidding. Some like to molest children. It is their truth. It is their life. Is this what you are talking about? For it to be a lie would mean a malicious intent and there is, at least as far as I am concerned, nothing in the universe that is malicious other than what has come about due to man's "mis-interpretations" of what he envisions God to be and the consequences of his false assumptions. I'm referring to crimes against humanity, such as genocide, racism, and eugenics. And, if you feel you need to speak for god so that god can be better understood, doesn't that help to characterize god for yourself?
In no case here, would observance of a god (let alone worship) be in order. And in all cases, your calling would be an obvious one. Here we totally agree. There is no evidence that states God's demand to be "worshiped", only what man has established in that he, man, likes being worshiped so he created a god of the same ilk. Check out your diamonds, gold, automobiles, clothes and all the trappings that illustrate this very point. We are creations of perfection, but to understand what perfection is, we must learn first what imperfection is. We can't be ordered around. Not in our nature so we must learn the hard way as we experience the errors of our decisions. Man can't command man, neither does God. Man is the culprit here and it is his greed for life that blinds him to the truth. If one could not appreciate life to its fullest, how could one be expected to appreciate heaven?
(I had philosophers pegged a little differently. It seems like everything has to be spelled out.)
Nothing like spelling it out. It makes communication a lot simpler. Thanks for spelling it out for me. I could participate in many more threads if others would just "spell it out" for dummy's like me. I do love simplicity. I am getting better though.
Thanks,
William
First: if you are going to apply animal descriptors of God, the burden of proof rests on you to show that God is an animal: or, at the very least, that if God exists, God is necessarily an animal.
To answer your question: there is reason to believe that God is manifest in animals and everything else, but no reason to think that God is an animal; this is due to the way in which God seems to be experienced by human beings, and the record can be checked against scripture and spiritual teachings known to history.
I mean: when was the last time a group of people held a faith tradition in which some particular goat was thought to be God, and, when the goat died, the people proclaimed that "God is dead"?
I don't agree that it's my burden to prove, but I will play along. To the contrary, the bible specifically states that the lord created us in their image. We are animals. Thus, by identity, so is the lord.
But, this is in re to an assumption you made that god could not act in a way that would be familiar to us (not in so many words)...big, big assumption.
And the problem with such an argument is, again, that you are taking the language of God as literal: this is a mistake.
I did not say that God could not act in a way that is familiar to us: I'm suggesting that to say "God acts" is figurative; action is, again, the language of man and incapable of explanation God in a literal manner.
Now, would you care to address my previous arguments?
You reference the bible often, which I think is a good common ground for discussion. Yet, either you think it is taken too literally, or not well enough. There's no middle ground for you, and you don't seem to allow me to use the same tool for a fair arugument's sake...
If the bible says the we look like god, then we look like god. End of debate (for our purposes). It's right there on page number uno. If that should not be taken at face value, then let's toss the book. Your point is that god would not want us to know how to read the book. That's irrational.
You also seem bent on the idea that god must be something other than some old fart, sitting on a granite throne somewhere. But, unless you can produce something that shows that he is something else, then we cannot conclude that. You probably know that. So, as if it means anything, all we have is the bible, because it may be the closest thing to a piss-poor stab at communicating with humans.
I see alot of personal interpretations of god here, in these forums. I find it interesting. But let it be well-understood that not even the pope knows about god any more than I do, or you, or anyone else. God is a no-show, a wildcard, a joker, if you will. So, please don't insist that you know him any better than anyone else, either.
Even if there is a god that is accurately characterized by the bible, and even if the bible was indeed a guidebook on how to do well in life and make it to heaven successfully...we ought to reject it all outright, because it is not diligently represented. It is simply not fair enough to humans.
At this point, you may be saying "what the..." and that's because you may have glossed over the proper perspective toward a real god all along. God is a bastard, literally speaking, who expects his rational subjects to think irrationally.
Did you actively and vehemently pursue and petition your government officials to interfere in and stop any of the world's recent genocides, such as what occured in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda or Sudan? If not then, by your own reasoning, you are either corrupt, or else you too are a coward.
So, that settles that.
this made me laugh.
