Atheists do not believe in a god (zeth is right, I worded that wrong last time). So, of course they do not have a sophisticated conception.
More nuanced is not necessarily better. Conceptions of god become more nuanced when people have to fit their conception of god to their beliefs about how the world works. If you belief that god created mankind, but read a few books about evolution, you take the more nuanced view that god started the whole process and guided it somehow. That is not likely to convince the atheist though, since you are just putting god in the gaps of what the atheist already believes.
See, here I think you guys reveal a misconception of atheists. By and large, we are fine with a god in the gaps type of sophisticated theology. It's the basic, in your face blunt theology that we actually care about. So it's not "the lame runner vs the world class sprinter" it's "the graffiti vandal vs the abstract modern artist". I may not like modern art, but I care a lot more about people spray painting my house.
Our views of science don't change when we learn more about god; our views of god change when we learn more about science.
The problem of evil is best used as an existential exercise. It's best used as a meditation. If God is so lame as to be made repulsive by this challenge, I'd suggest that the God you have in mind is not God. I know that can sound strange, but it's not so odd if we go back to that classic concept regarding God: aseity.
No matter how you spin it... Does this mean that you are familiar you all types of prayer? And that you know, for a fact, that prayer is necessarily a form of protest?
Well, if you think so, you're quite wrong. I can recommend some reading if you'd like.
Unless I'm not trying to get anyone to arrive at my reasoning. If I say that God is experienced, not reasoned to, then there is no sense in me explaining any sort of reasoning.
Well, geology isn't and never was a serious objection to Christianity.
I can grant this but what does this prove exactly? It doesn't prove that God changed, it just proves we had a misunderstanding of His nature.
It is and has been to many christians, those who believe in the literal truth of the bible.
I get the impression "god in the gaps" has a much more specific meaning that the more general "religious beliefs adapt to science" way I was using it?
I feel that science has and will have much to say about spirituality.
But if we had a misunderstanding of his nature, and science showed us otherwise, then it isn't a stretch to say that we still have a misunderstanding of his nature, and that science will show us otherwise. And perhaps our misunderstanding of his nature is thinking he exists.
If our views of God change as we learn more about science, we have missed God in the first place.
But it is not from the aspect of existentialism that the details come to mind. All you have to do is compare the old testament to the new one and quickly one starts to notice there is a drastic change in god's behavior or reactionary actions towards man.
For example, the original sin concept. The details by which I understand it is that god made humans and they were free to do as they wanted. God gave them only one rule and they disobeyed that rule. God now condemned them because of their disobedience.
Now this story reflects on god as using nature to do his work for him. ie. the flood. So you can use this type of story to reflect on the behavior of the god in the bible. ie. the source of where the concept of god that most adopt comes from. If god is willing to use nature in the bible to do his work, would he still do the same using natural disasters today?
Typical. I present an argument and since you have nothing to answer it with you suggest that I don't know there are other forms of prayer when I clearly pointed out that I did. I acknowledge that there are other forms yet you did not address the forms in which I presented.
Alright fair enough, but why mention it at all then?
You didn't provide anything other than to simply say, that is not how I see it. Alright but yeah you are not alone with that argument.
There are thirty three thousand denominations of Christianity alone, and not even the same people from the same church can agree on the concepts of Christianity. Because people use vague arguments and convoluted reasoning to proclaim their understanding. When asked why they think that way, you don't get a response, what more can you do?
I can grant this but what does this prove exactly? It doesn't prove that God changed, it just proves we had a misunderstanding of His nature.
How about? When we change, we change god to suit that change? Why? Because god is just our imagination, something we just made up so we can cope with existence.
If we can't understand god's nature then we never will be able to. If we will never be able to then how can you ever be certain that your current understanding is ever right? Because you have faith that you are right? Well hell, all those people in the past you just said they were wrong and misunderstood gods nature. I ask how do you know that you have it right?
What this ultimately leads to is that god wants you to believe but you have absolutely no idea what to believe in. It's so convoluted but no one wants to accept that it is.
Yes, the presentation of God changes. But God is not presented in exactly the same way throughout the Old Testament, either.
Sort of. It's a bit more involved. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - in other words, they are not supposed to judge the world, much less judge the world in terms of dualities. Because Adam and Eve eat of said tree, because we humans like so very much to judge the world, to judge in terms of duality, we are separated by degree from God.
God does not condemn in the story. Adam and Eve separate themselves from God by their disobedience. The message being basically that we humans separate ourselves from God by believing that we can judge, and that we can be so self-righteous as to call something good and something else evil.
The story is not a work of history. It is a figurative legend, one with a deeper, didactic purpose.
Except that you claimed that all prayer is a form of protest. That claim is not true. Again, would you like some sources?
If you go into the subject with aggressive, dismissive arguments armed with simplistic understandings of complex texts, you are not going to get very far at all. If you are not into religion, if you have no interest in the practice of religion in your own life, there is little sense trying to understand the nature and ways of that practice. If you want any understanding of God, you have to seek - and seeking God is not merely an intellectual adventure.
How can you be certain that current scientific understand is right?
What I was pointing out was that people can be wrong about their ideas of what God is but their being wrong does not change what God is.
Faith in God is never wrong however, people can have faith in God for faulty reasons.
I don't think I said that we couldn't understand Gods nature but there will always be more to learn about God's nature. And we can/should in fact come to a better understanding of God's nature all the time.
There are petty issues and there are serious issues when concerning God. Petty issues we can be wrong about as long as we have a good grasp of the serious issues. whether the earth is x years old or not or whether the universe started at the big bang or not or rapture vs no rapture are petty issues. loving others as yourself, believing that God exists, believing I have a soul, believing God is love is a serious issue
I don't and I wouldn't ever assume that it was. However; science can be verified through testing, retesting and continued testing. If the same or similar results keep reoccurring it is safe to assume that you can make rational decisions based of that logic. With god you can't do that because there is nothing to test instead it is just assumptions.
And I am asking, how do you know they are wrong? How do you know what you believe is right?
Faith in god is never wrong? How does that make any sense? I believe that my god would want me to kill people for saying a bad word. That is never wrong?
How do you verify it?
It is only serious in your point of view, not even other believers would accept what you say here to be the only things that are serious. Therefore your statement is not universal. So how are you verifying that what you say is serious or not serious to discuss?
science is based on assumptions as well.
God has given us holy books such as the bible(I hope we can at least agree that the bible is a spiritually driven text).
We can then make presuppositions(assumptions) about God's nature/will through our understanding of what we've read and by putting those things into practice, say loving others as we love ourselves, we can determine if these things are verifiable.
Well through my own understanding and personal reflection and reading of the word I have formulated what I believe. The reason for believing God exists abound in great quantity one needs but to be open to them.
Now, presupposing God exists, we are left to try and discover His nature and will. This is why as we discover more about God we begin to pick away at our incorrect notions and slowly reveal what has always been there in the first place.
Is that why you have faith in God? That's what I was talking about....people can have faith in God, but their reason for having faith my not be correct. That does not mean that their faith isn't though, just their reasoning.
And so have the people of the past, but you stated earlier that they got it incorrect. Well you still have not answered how you can know that what you understand to be right, you only went in circles. You basically are saying, you believe you are right because you believe you are right.
Sort of like picking the peddles off a flower can reveal the flower in it's completeness?
This is where you are making the whole thing convoluted. Why have faith at all? What is your reasoning for having faith?
If we are going to blame God and God alone for this disaster (and ignore, for some inexplicable reason, the human involvement in the disaster, ie, hundreds of years of human tyranny on that island) then we must also blame God for everything good in this world, too. It's God's fault, and no one else had a hand in it, that you are safe, secure, with a marvelous machine that allows you to communicate with millions of people all over the globe, his fault that you have a warm, nutritious meal in the evenings should you be hungry or bored, and a comfortable bed at night.
Not that I think that God is this sort of being (considering that God, traditionally, is not a being at all), but if we're going to make such an assertion, at least give Him credit for everything else, too.
So is it your claim that God actually caused the earthquake, or that He permitted it to happen, or that He permitted the evil (pain and suffering) that it caused to happen. I am not clear?
That only strengthens my statement. There is a lack of consistency which favors that god is just a made up concept that is allowed to free float in definition and any definition is never challenged because it is allowable to have any definition one wants to have.
Yeah but someone had to design the path way. You can't say there is a choice that never had the premise of the question. It is absurd. It would be like asking someone, which direction they want to drive if there are no roads to drive on. Unless you have an off road vehicle it wouldn't make any sense to ask them that. So there has to be a thought behind the reactionary measure. Therefore god would have to have designed it that way making it his reaction. If you do not accept, you will be cast out.
Yes, you think that, but there were billions that believed it was actual events. There are still thousands that believe it was an actual event. Worse yet there are people in power making political decisions that believe it was an actual event.
Now I know you didn't read what I wrote because I did state that could be other reasons other than protest. Once again, no direct challenge to my statement about prayer only a strawman to insight I didn't know something that I already knew.
In other words you have to abandon reasoning before you can understand god. Just believe to believe because believing is better than non-belief. That is why the pink elephant exists.
The earthquake is the cause of the disaster. If there is a god who created the world, then earthquakes are caused by god. Human tyranny does not cause earthquakes.
...
Human tyranny does not cause earthquakes - ya, thanks for the science lesson. I somehow missed that tidbit of information.
Human tyranny does herd massive populations into small areas, house them in poorly built structures, and neglect to provide the necessary tools for handling disaster.
The earthquake is the cause of the disaster. If there is a god who created the world, then earthquakes are caused by god. Human tyranny does not cause earthquakes.
---------- Post added 01-27-2010 at 09:07 AM ----------
That is because I purposefully left it open, as it does not matter which of those is the case for my purposes. If there is a God, and if it created the world, then it caused the earthquake. If there is a God, and if it is omnipotent and omniscient, then even if it were not the creator of the earth, then it knowingly allowed it to happen, and being omnipotent, correcting the problem would have been effortless. What we would be dealing with is a being who did not care enough about the thousands of people to even so much as lift a finger to prevent the earthquake.
The final sentence was a hint that I am not seriously asserting that there is a god. But if there is one, it obviously did not stop the earthquake from happening. And so, it either wanted that, or was unable to prevent it. So we either end up with an evil god or an impotent god (which is so impotent that it was unable to even give a warning of the impending disaster) or both.
Perhaps you could thank God for not hitting Haiti with another Earthquake, killing the remaining population along with the American helpers.
While we're at the stupid remarks. Let's thank God for saving the people who got out of the Twin Towers before they collapsed. There must have been some 'greater good' for allowing the planes to hit it first...
People died at the hands of men driving the planes, not for the sake of some "greater good".
