Another "God" question

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;174493 wrote:

God exists
There is suffering
Therefore, god exists in a way that is not contradictory with the existence of suffering

If I may here. Again, this will come down to which model we are talking about. Might you be talking in lines with the YHWH model, Jebediah? In the event that you are--if, in fact, you are--the above is exactly the case--as mark noble has pointed in twice.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174494 wrote:

I have only asked you to justify your argument. My argument has been negative - I have asserted nothing at all about whether I think God exists. I am saying that the argument from the oil rig disaster says nothing about the question, one way or the other.

But your negative argument begs the question.

The existence of evil in the world has long been an argument against God. Natural disasters are often chosen because they exist outside of the free will argument (we could have free will and no disasters).

I don't really understand the objection you have to the argument, because what you've been saying is in the form of the argument I put in my last post.

jeeprs;174496 wrote:

It might be that evil, suffering, oil spills, and nuclear disasters are all necessary, for all we know.

Necessary for what?

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 12:44 AM ----------

KaseiJin;174500 wrote:

If I may here. Again, this will come down to which model we are talking about. Might you be talking in lines with the YHWH model, Jebediah? In the event that you are--if, in fact, you are--the above is exactly the case--as mark noble has pointed in twice.

The model of god that argument would force, would be so different from how the word God is used in anglo-american culture that it would need to be called something else.

1 Reply

@Wozz,

Krumple, I hate to point out the obvious here, but you're talking to yourself.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174496 wrote:

There are references that YHWH was coined for exactly the reason I said, namely, it is four consonants, no syllables, cannot be spoken.

jeeprs, you're talking about English here, not Hebrew . . . and YHWH is simple the transliteration (we can say, in a way) of the exact Hebrew letters. Additionally, there are not 'many other meanings attributed to the word' with validity. You have been misinformed, jeeprs.

I can see, then that in one way my hunch was accurate enough (in your not likely holding to the YHWH model), and in another way, was wrong (perhaps that, in that you're simply arguing for the arguing, and not because you wish to describe, or give credit to the particular model you adhere to, you were referring to YHWH with that statement). OK, I'll take care of that there, then.

0 Replies

@Wozz,

Quote:

The Jewish Circumlocutions for YHWH
The Greek New Testament preserves (in translation) the current Jewish circumlocutions for the Tetragrammaton [in Hebrew, Yhwh. By Jesus' day, the Jews already considered the name Yhwh too sacred to be pronounced outside the Temple. Wherever Yhwh was written in a Hebrew text, the reader substituted another divine name in its place. Usually the divine name used was Adonay or "Lord"]. Elohim or "God" was used when Adonay actually preceded Yhwh in writing. All mainstream" Greek Septuagint manuscripts, other Hellenistic Jewish texts, and the Greek New Testament translate Yhwh and Elohim as Kyrios [ Κυριος ] and Theos

Source

And actually, the reason I mentioned the 'unspeakable' nature of YHWH was in connection to the idea that 'God' is 'beyond name and form'. In all of these discussions, whatever we are referring to is only a neural impulse, as I am sure you will agree, KJ. People have particular associations with the word 'God', whether emotional, historical, religious, and so on. So the reality (or otherwise) of the phenomena (which is not a phenomena) is actually off the map, not within the scope of 'name and form', not something which can be named.

So it is a pointless argument, you will say. I would agree, except for the fact that it is important to understand what is being defined in all of this, and what is being denied. For me, whatever 'G*D' is, is not a label that applies to a concept, or a term that applies to a being. Insofar as it is one of these, then it has no special interest for me. Instead 'it' is something that can only be approached through meditation. The rest of it is just neurobiology, as I am sure you know.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174504 wrote:

Krumple, I hate to point out the obvious here, but you're talking to yourself.

Isn't that what theists do? Talk to themselves?

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;174501 wrote:

The model of god that argument would force, would be so different from how the word God is used in anglo-american culture that it would need to be called something else.

Yes, and by this we can learn too things. One, just how ignorant the anglo-American culture of today (recent 100 years) is in respect to the real issue of English word usage in this particular case, and, two, just how Christianity has migrated from it's earliest roots within the beginning of the first century.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

The essential divide I'm getting at here is that people are talking about two very different things, and calling them both by the same name.

There is one being, that if you believe exists you should go to church, pray, read the bible, follow the 10 commandments, pay head to your minister, follow the christian moral rules, hope to go to heaven and fear going to hell, and ask for forgiveness for your sins.

Then we have huge multitude of arguments designed to argue the logical possibility of various beings. The cosmological argument tries to prove a "necessary being". The teleological argument tries to prove that there is a "mind that produces the order in nature". And so on.

But these are vastly different, to the point that it is quite deceitful to say that these arguments are arguments for the existence of God.

jeeprs wrote:

People have particular associations with the word 'God', whether emotional, historical, religious, and so on. So the reality (or otherwise) of the phenomena (which is not a phenomena) is actually off the map, not within the scope of 'name and form', not something which can be named.

So it is a pointless argument, you will say. I would agree, except for the fact that it is important to understand what is being defined in all of this, and what is being denied. For me, whatever 'G*D' is, is not a label that applies to a concept, or a term that applies to a being. Insofar as it is one of these, then it has no special interest for me. Instead 'it' is something that can only be approached through meditation. The rest of it is just neurobiology, as I am sure you know.

But we agree then? I'm not sure what we were arguing about in that case.

There is no problem with talking about "it". No more than there is a problem with trying to figure out what christmas is all about. Just like denying the existence of santa is not denying the existence of the phenomena of christmas, denying the existence of god is not denying the existence of the phenomena of religion.

Quote:

It is quite possible that many do, and that God is just a projection to them. But it doesn't mean that this is all that is happening.

I saw a classic film once called The Ruling Class, with Peter O'Toole playing a schizophrenic who inherited an estate and title in the house of lords. Crazy far out film. He was convinced he was Jesus Christ. Somebody asked him: 'Why do you think you are God'. 'Simple', he said 'I used to pray a lot and then I realised I was talking to myself.

Classic

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;174507 wrote:

Isn't that what theists do? Talk to themselves?

It is quite possible that many do, and that God is just a projection to them. But it doesn't mean that this is all that is happening.

I saw a classic film once called The Ruling Class, with Peter O'Toole playing a schizophrenic who inherited an estate and title in the house of lords. Crazy far out film. He was convinced he was Jesus Christ. Somebody asked him: 'Why do you think you are God'. 'Simple', he said 'I used to pray a lot and then I realised I was talking to myself.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 03:04 PM ----------

Jebediah;174510 wrote:

The essential divide I'm getting at here is that people are talking about two very different things, and calling them both by the same name.

Very good observation. But I think this is happening all throughout our conversations on the Forum, when it comes to this topic. Everyone has a slightly different conception of what it is they actually mean. Now of course there is the conventional conception, which I can't really represent, although sometimes I try and do that. But whenever I am backed into a corner, as you will well know by now, I tend to play the 'mystical awareness' card. But I am not being disingenous in doing that. It is my honest approach to the whole discussion (and life itself, for that matter). I will try and be honest about what I mean, though.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 03:07 PM ----------

also I feel KaseiJin believes that nature rules, evolution explains everything, and God is a myth.

But he's also a very nice person.

Just wanted to get that out in the open.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174506 wrote:

Source
And actually, the reason I mentioned the 'unspeakable' nature of YHWH was in connection to the idea that 'God' is 'beyond name and form'.

Either you are not reading your source quite as carefully as you should, or, you are a bit weak in the background information which comes before it. (of course I'd never expect a fair exposition from a 'Church News Bulletin) We would not be talking of first century Greek LXX texts which use the Tetragrammaton in early Hebrew script which can be found (or even in sacred nomous [sp?]), and we are not talking of any Christian Greek manuscripts at all, jeepers. We are talking about pre-exilic Hebrew religious usage of the personal name of the god they slowly came to worship more than the others. I will expound on, and explain that, then, down on that other thread later on.

Additionally, your later argument is not actually (as it turns out there, at least) talking about the YHWH model, so, no problem. The YHWH model is very fixed . . . which is why it can be logical shown to be a non-reality.

0 Replies

@Wozz,

Oh I get it. Well I am not a biblical (or any kind of) scholar. I am kind of crypto-Buddhist with some Christian instincts, and far too much time on my hands....

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 03:40 PM ----------

KaseiJin;174514 wrote:

Additionally, your later argument is not actually (as it turns out there, at least) talking about the YHWH model, so, no problem

For us 60's types, God is not a concept or a model or someone you pray to in Church. God is an experience and an adventure. Not the object of supplication by people in medieval robes.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174515 wrote:

For us 60's types, God is not a concept or a model or someone you pray to in Church. God is an experience and an adventure. Not the object of supplication by people in medieval robes.

LOL !! Nice comeback. Please do not forget, however, that I am not that far behind from being a '60's' type myself . . . in that I too, can quite clearly recall seeing John Glenn's Gemini blast off in black and white, and stood about curiously as my uncle and his company friends built that thick-walled concrete underground shelter, with all the shelving for stored food...boy...some days.

0 Replies

@Wozz,

well I'm trying not to derail here but I think it is already too late. I really am trying to answer the question about the problem of evil. So I will give my honest answer.

I don't 'believe in God' in the orthodox way, but I am not an atheist. So I wouldn't go to Church and pray for something. Therefore it makes no sense to 'blame God' for anything that happens, either. How I understand God is that God is not a sky-father. I believe that many people who believe in God, actually believe in something very like Jupiter. Jupiter is derived from the Sanskrit 'dyaus-pitar', literally meaning 'Sky Father'. As in 'our Father who art in Heaven'. And I think this is the level of most popular religion.

I think I understand that kind of belief, and where it originates. But I don't actually subscribe to it myself. What I do believe is something quite different. I can't even reallly use the word 'God' for it. It is more like 'that'. Actually my favourite term has always been 'The Not' or even just 'no'.

I think every particular thing emerges, or arises, from an unkowable matrix of consciousness-energy. This is very similar to the Hindu idea of Brahman. Now it is not possible to form a concept of this, because it is prior to all conceptual consciousness. The Vedanta says: it is 'that which is knowing, that which is seeing'. You will ask, well what is that which is knowing, that which is seeing'. The answer is, we cannot know it, because that is what we are. We are never apart from it, and cannot make it an object. But at the same time, we never really know anything else.

But this too, insofar as it is an idea, is only another 'conceptual construction', so there is no point getting too attached to it ar presenting it as a kind of final theory. (This is called 'the emptiness of emptiness' in Buddhism.)

Now this is a very profound philosophy. It is by no means my invention, and I don't want to 'evangalise' or convert anyone to it. It provides a framework within which many of these kinds of questions can be satisfactorily answered, that is all. But in order for this to happen, you have to really go into it. You have to learn to sit in 'dhyana' and let the answers arise. You can't go and get them. It has to come to you.

Now it might give you a different perspective on life's problems and 'the problem of evil', but it is something you have to come to yourself.

Hope that is OK.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;174367 wrote:

What's wrong with it? The premises are hidden but it's legitimate:

If god exists, he would not let oil spill in the gulf
Oil has spilled in the gulf
Therefore, god does not exist

It's a classic and devastating argument that has forced theists into the position of equivocating on the definition of "god".

What you're referring to is the problem of evil. And, in my opinion, a professor should have clarified what he or she was implying, since, as you may know, there are other notions of God which don't abide by the anthropomorphized God (O,O,O) found in many modern monotheistic religions. A professor should not simply state that, because there was an oil spill, God does not exist. There really needs to be more clarification. And I would think a professor in logic would understand that.

Your premise one has many presuppositions, such as, that God does (or is the reason for) everything, that God can only do what is good, and that the oil spill was bad. Primarily we would be concerned with the all-good property. But even insofar as that is concerned, there are people who have found solutions to the problem of evil (as far as I know).

Anyway, that's what is wrong.

0 Replies

@Dr Seuss,

Dr. Seuss;174475 wrote:

Wonderful, I hope you enjoyed your shortbread. I dont have all the answers like no one else does, life is a quest for answers to questions that we dont know. If it wasn't that there are things we dont know we would not have what we do know.Having said that, I think he did not know at the time he created him but he knew what his intentions were later. Just as with the creation of mankind. Why would he create something that he knew would fail him? It would not make much sense for a being so high as the Almighty Creator. Im not God so it would be illogical for me to answer for him. I can only tell you what I have read in the Bible. You want answers go read his Word. After all who am I?

That would be the case under our human law and order.
However, we are in a world that is not ours.
Allowing also implies that you did not try to stop him. God encouraged him to turn back to Him and he rebelled against God and forming an alliance with other angels who shared the same thought. (Demons)

God knew there were angels that supported Satan, but it would not be very just of him to just wipe out and kill all those creatures. In fact he gave them the opportunity to test and see what will benefit them more. To stay with Him or being ruled by the devil.

That's an easy one. Mistakes. xD

It will turn out because God predicted it to happen. What are prophesies if not predictions that something might happen in the future?

Since God has a perfect and accurate sense of analyzing and predicting all his predictions has turned out to be, making it seem like He is behind it since he 'knows everything'. Its like a profiler for the FBI. They are able to predict behavior from a pattern. Who else better than God that made us understand out patterns?

But that doesnt mean the FBI is behind it.

You slitting your thought wont affect Gods purpose in anyway since how is that going to affect the re-establishment of his kingdom on earth?

You are wrong, faith without acts is dead. James 2:26 "Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Hi Dr Seuss,
I haven't figured on how to multi-quote yet, so bear with me.
My shortbread was fantastic, I put mincemeat (fruit version of) in it - Good blend, Ithought...
!) Are you saying that you think God did not know the resulting consequences from creating mankind and satan? He is, after all, accredited with being the "Alpha and Omega" - At both the beginning and the end. If so, you would think that with the gift of hindsight He has seen what will be before it IS?
2) I read the bible all the time and I wonder why you think that God would not create something that would fail Him?
3) I can only slit my throat (can't we make this one less gory - like jump into a volcano, maybe)? Hence - I can only jump into a volcano at the appointed time predestined me by God - Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." This text tells us that God knows every event before it occurs, EVERY event; And is therefore ommniscient to the hilt (past and future). Revelation provides us with the capacity to understand this, alone.

No act can take place that God has not destined to do so. That throws free-will out the proverbial window - For whatever action I take (everything else too) I/It MUST take, or I am overpowering the will of God, therefore, submitting God to my will and, ultimately, gaining power over God, becoming God and creating a paradox of God's inexistence - Nullifying the whole process - returning home to wales, only to find - I've been burgled and all my shortbread has been stolen.

I understand the "Faith/Works" principle - My point was that Faith would not apply if God were proven to Be - Works wouldn't matter then, so I didn't mention them.
And if faith (works too - but, not the point of this sentence) is to be maintained - God would NOT provide convincing miracles, thus removing the requirement of said faith, again nullifying God's own ideals...But that's another story.

Nobody in the history of mankind has anything other than an illusory definition for the spirit, soul. we can't even seperate the mind from biological functioning. Can you define it? There's a good, recent, thread on it by my brother in arms "Mark Gamson". Take a peek, time permitting.

Thank you Dr Seuss, Yet again, an inspiring and welcome conversation. Have a magnificent everything, always.
Mark...

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174515 wrote:

For us 60's types, God is not a concept or a model or someone you pray to in Church. God is an experience and an adventure. Not the object of supplication by people in medieval robes.

I doubt this is for those 60s types. This to me is what I notice within the new age christian movement. I see it as a last ditch effort to try and maintain the myth by diluting the belief system from a literalistic, apologetic fundamentalist attitude to a very broad, generalization. It is almost so generalized that you can't even really say anything about it really. However; your outlook is still very unpopular as far as christian theology is concerned. There are still hundreds of thousands of people who do think god is a being to be prayed to, worshiped and to supplicate to people in medieval robes.

Not too long ago I saw a youtube video where a group of atheists had visited a catholic church where one of them made a joke after taking the communion wafer cracker / jesus cookie and holding it for ransom. So rather than eating the cracker she played a joke and it totally got all the theists and even some atheists all bent out of shape. It is a cracker but since it syboloicly represents jesus that it now becomes off limits to ridicule or joke about. This shows that there are still massive amounts of superstition within the theists community. So although you might not think in terms of the need for church or worshiping around men dressed in religious costumes it doesn't mean that the rest of the theistic community is so nonchalant about their beliefs.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;174691 wrote:

Not too long ago I saw a youtube video where a group of atheists had visited a catholic church where one of them made a joke after taking the communion wafer cracker / jesus cookie and holding it for ransom. So rather than eating the cracker she played a joke and it totally got all the theists and even some atheists all bent out of shape. It is a cracker but since it syboloicly represents jesus that it now becomes off limits to ridicule or joke about. This shows that there are still massive amounts of superstition within the theists community. So although you might not think in terms of the need for church or worshiping around men dressed in religious costumes it doesn't mean that the rest of the theistic community is so nonchalant about their beliefs.

As a Christian I would have found the idea of taking a host wafer hostage hillarious. This is one of the problems with the whole discussion of Christian and non-Christian is where do we draw the line. For example, I worship God, believe in Christ and go to church; however, I don't believe in sacramentalism, robes, holy objects or clergy (even though legally I am recognized as such).

Too often, I have had nontheists shout, "Yeah! Well you Christians believe (enter some silly doctrine that I and many others do not believe) and that proves your (enter expletive of choice) wrong!" Too few want to do the research necessary to know what their Christian opponent believes. Though I am a Chrisitan but I read various atheist writers because I must know what others are saying to know if they are speaking the truth or need refutation. Besides many of these books are some of the most entertaining stuff I can find. Nietzsche, for example, makes me laugh myself silly.

I agree there are many in my camp who do get needlessly bent out of shape, but this is not all of us. Of course that depends on how you define "bent out of shape."

1 Reply

@cluckk,

cluckk;174772 wrote:

As a Christian I would have found the idea of taking a host wafer hostage hillarious. This is one of the problems with the whole discussion of Christian and non-Christian is where do we draw the line. For example, I worship God, believe in Christ and go to church; however, I don't believe in sacramentalism, robes, holy objects or clergy (even though legally I am recognized as such).

Too often, I have had nontheists shout, "Yeah! Well you Christians believe (enter some silly doctrine that I and many others do not believe) and that proves your (enter expletive of choice) wrong!" Too few want to do the research necessary to know what their Christian opponent believes. Though I am a Chrisitan but I read various atheist writers because I must know what others are saying to know if they are speaking the truth or need refutation. Besides many of these books are some of the most entertaining stuff I can find. Nietzsche, for example, makes me laugh myself silly.

I agree there are many in my camp who do get needlessly bent out of shape, but this is not all of us. Of course that depends on how you define "bent out of shape."

I have a lot of respect for your attitude. As I see it, if you can maintain a level of mind that doesn't get all worked up over someone ridiculing your beliefs then you are at a much more approachable point.

The thing that I see happening is that "religion" in general gets a sort of "off limits" card. Where in mainstream media you are not allowed to critique religion because it is considered condescending or insulting. Why is it that we have gotten to this point where one aspect of thought is completely off limits but everything else is acceptable?

I am reminded by the common analogy:

If I believed there was a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator without actually providing any evidence for it's existence people would brand me as a lunatic for believing it. Even if I were to say well although I have never actually seen the diamond, my belief in it gives my life meaning and I really wouldn't want to live in a world where there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard.

Just because a belief makes you feel good, does not qualify it to be something worth evangelizing about if it does not have support to back up the claims.

No where else in society is this acceptable behavior, yet when it comes to religion we get this off limits card played. The thing is, it is no different than a person talking about a diamond buried in their back yard.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing else in our world gets a free bee so why should we stop at religion?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;174785 wrote:

I am reminded by the common analogy:

If I believed there was a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator without actually providing any evidence for it's existence people would brand me as a lunatic for believing it. Even if I were to say well although I have never actually seen the diamond, my belief in it gives my life meaning and I really wouldn't want to live in a world where there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard.

Just because a belief makes you feel good, does not qualify it to be something worth evangelizing about if it does not have support to back up the claims.

No where else in society is this acceptable behavior, yet when it comes to religion we get this off limits card played. The thing is, it is no different than a person talking about a diamond buried in their back yard.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing else in our world gets a free bee so why should we stop at religion?

I totally agree. Society has certain criteria for which delusions are acceptable, and which will label a person as mentally ill.

One of my favorites are those certain religious persons who talk in tongues. It is supposed to be some divine language, but its obviously gibberish. It doesnt even come close to resembling a language in my opinion.

Or when im channel surfing and i come across this guy who is blowing on people, and they fall to the ground and flop around like a fish out of water. Its laughable, and probably rehearsed(much money to be made). But im sure the majority in the crowd believe it to be genuine.

Religion gets the "anything goes" card. Mentally retarded/delusional behavior is acceptable as long as it is in the name of religion. Similar behaviour outsided of religion, and a person would be evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist, and put on some sort of medication.

2 Replies

@Neil D,

Neil;175041 wrote:

I totally agree. Society has certain criteria for which delusions are acceptable, and which will label a person as mentally ill.

One of my favorites are those certain religious persons who talk in tongues. It is supposed to be some divine language, but its obviously gibberish. It doesnt even come close to resembling a language in my opinion.

Or when im channel surfing and i come across this guy who is blowing on people, and they fall to the ground and flop around like a fish out of water. Its laughable, and probably rehearsed(much money to be made). But im sure the majority in the crowd believe it to be genuine.

Religion gets the "anything goes" card. Mentally retarded/delusional behavior is acceptable as long as it is in the name of religion. Similar behaviour outsided of religion, and a person would be evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist, and put on some sort of medication.

Hi Neil,
Group hysteria is a very powerful force when the majority play a part and the susceptible mind (typically wanting to believe) finds it almost impossible to resist conformity.
The vulnerable are easily induced. To them it becomes very real, indeed.
My friend (on this forum), a pentacostalist, Mark Gamson, encountered this firsthand. He was in a line, when pushed, he pushed back. Disgusted by this fraudulance, I believe he gathered himself and left. He also says that "speaking in tongues" is conducted in privacy, not in public. When he does it - he doesn't always, if ever, know what it means, he only knows it brings him closer to his God. His relationship with God is only relevant to him.
I'm not of said God, but he is one of the best friends any person could have.
Have a brilliant day, Neil.
Mark...

1 Reply

Another "God" question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know