This thread strayed onto another one so reposting this here.
Quote:@Leadfoot (from InfraBlue)
Well, you started by asking if it was possible to hypothesize a God that answers all the objections to religion(s) and at the same time is compatible with reason and human nature. Frank suggested a god that always existed and that occasionally just creates things to see what happens, one that can create beings incapable of comprehending a true creator.
You dismissed that as being too boring. You suggested a more interesting scenario in which the beings could comprehend the creator, and that every religion that you've been exposed to tells you that you can't comprehend God and that you're just not buying that story.
I responded by saying that already, you are introducing contradictions to the circumstances that we find ourselves in, what with your desire for an interesting god that isn't boring to you. You object to religion, but you're creating your own religion.
Thanks for the recap, I would have reviewed it myself but bandwidth is in short supply here. Slower than dial-up and intermittent.
My bad, I should not have blown Franks suggestion off so flippantly. I'm going to ramble a bit but here's why I don't think there is a contradiction.
When I said "a God that makes sense" I meant *to us*. The arbitrary God that did what Frank suggested fails that test but also fails in terms of what an intelligent God would be expected to do as well.
You might argue that I am anthropomorphizing God (and many have made that charge) but why not? Archaeologists legitimately draw all kinds of conclusions from the trash piles of long dead civilizations, why is it unreasonable to draw conclusions about our own creator by looking at his creations (us)?
When we try to create conscious beings (AI) what model do we use? Ourselves of course, so why would it be unreasonable to assume that God would do the same?
When I said Franks concept was boring and not interesting enough, I was speaking for humans and God. I would find a creation of my own able to relate to me, it's maker, infinitely more interesting than one that could not. I think that would be God's choice too. It just makes sense to me.
If he had wanted beings that could not know him, he could have stopped with animals. I find Zoos boring and cruel. And putting sentient beings in a zoo purely for the entertainment of the zoo keeper would be unspeakably cruel. Our creator is obviously a hard ass but not a little boy frying ants with his magnifying glass for fun.
As for the charge of starting my own religion, I'm not sure what to say. I've never wanted to do such a thing. But if it made sense, I'd do it. God knows we could use one that did.
