A God That Makes Sense?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

We're not going to have the He/She God debate , are we?

Apparently not

Quote:

If God is just 'mother nature' , that fails the 'give a ****' test as well.

More to it than that. Having delved deeper reveals Her true 'nature'

Quote:

Your cosmology is out of date.

Sorry about that

Quote:

All the evidence points to...No 'Big Crunch'...

Yet the Crunch avoids all sorts of paradox and contradiction

Quote:

Scientology works??

That "religion ' was begun as a sort of joke. Some aspects are so silly as to demote the entirety. It's too bad

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyway...why not 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."

Because that would be boring. Not the part about seeing what happens, that is interesting. Much more interesting if the beings COULD comprehend the creator. Every religion I've been exposed to tells me that I CAN'T comprehend God. I'm just not buying that story.

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.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Oops!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

How the heck do you embed quotes here?

Usu there's a link right above the posting, in bluish or greenish tone. Clicking on it gives you all sorts of options: B, i, u, Quote, etc

Quote:

Every religion I've been exposed to tells me that I CAN'T comprehend God. I'm just not buying that story

Well Foot yes and no. As time goes on and we get smarter, we can come closer and closer to a full understanding of apodictical existential pantheism tho questions will linger

Quote:

Why not just accept that the existence or non-existence of gods in REALITY is an unknown...and accept it as an unknown?

Forgive me Foot but that's like saying, "Let's not think any more about The Universe"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Apparently not

Quote:
If God is just 'mother nature' , that fails the 'give a ****' test as well.
More to it than that. Having delved deeper reveals Her true 'nature'

Quote:
Your cosmology is out of date.
Sorry about that

Quote:
All the evidence points to...No 'Big Crunch'...
Yet the Crunch avoids all sorts of paradox and contradiction

Quote:
Scientology works??
That "religion ' was begun as a sort of joke. Some aspects are so silly as to demote the entirety. It's too bad

Thanks for the quote tip, still working on it though, may be harder on iPad.

Is the gender of God important to you? I had not assigned one to God. 'He' is just convenient .

"Her true nature" is what I'm interested in. Tell me more. It still has to be personally relevant though. If she is just benignly looking down for entertainment, meh....

Yes, the 'Big Crunch' would indeed eliminate paradox and contradiction. Physicists were really hoping for that and some were really pissed off at the lack of enough matter and the discovery of dark energy that doomed the 'Crunch' theory.
Contradictions are invaluable. The answers are found when looking closely at them.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Thanks for the quote tip...

Not at all

Quote:

Is the gender of God important to you?....

Only to the extent that in a sense I can make fun of the idea. However there is something motherly about the action of the Universe

Quote:

"Her true nature" is what I'm interested in. Tell me more.

She is It, All, Inevitable. I'd describe Her as "evolution;" though misleading in view of the fact that nothing is entirely anything...

If I can elaborate, ask

Quote:

It still has to be personally relevant though.

Can't guarantee anything

Quote:

If she is just benignly looking down for entertainment, meh....

Well; because the Whole Thing is entirely meaningless without the Humanoid, there is strongly such an interpretation--but only as part of Her

Quote:

Yes, the 'Big Crunch' would indeed eliminate paradox and contradiction.

Thank you for understanding this

Quote:

Physicists were really hoping for that and some were really pissed off at the lack of enough matter....

Eventually their hope will be stored: Mark my words, Foot

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:
Physicists were really hoping for that and some were really pissed off at the lack of enough matter....

Eventually their hope will be [re]stored: Mark my words, Foot

So noted :-) My guess is that things will get harder and harder to explain. After creating sentient beings, God can only do so much to cover his tracks. But yes, there will always be plausible deniability. Free Will again.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Quote:
Why not just accept that the existence or non-existence of gods in REALITY is an unknown...and accept it as an unknown?

Forgive me Foot but that's like saying, "Let's not think any more about The Universe"

That were not my words, but in this we agree.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That were not my words,...

Oops

Quote:

...but in this we agree

Yes we have a handle on it

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

leadfoot wrote:

Why he would conceal himself is an important point though. Your statement about man rejecting his maker does not explain it well enough for me. Why would an almighty God run and hide from mere Man? I figure if he cared enough to make us there must be a good reason.

Except the God in this story isn't running or hiding, merely overseeing a period of time in which he is not actively ruling.
What is more, this god provides a letter to humanity explaining the predicament, what he intends to do about it, and what he requires of them in the meantime. Said letter draws out the very inner thoughts of its reader, making him easier to judge, very much in the same way a Rorschach test would. He has to allow man the choice in this period, does he follow man's guidance, or against the grain would he seek out this gods guidance. this would resolve a second challenge set out by his adversary, namely that man is inherently self serving. and would not serve the God figure if it were not for his ever benevolent hand over them.

leadfoot wrote:

I figure if he cared enough to make us there must be a good reason.

I always found in the Edenic story it was interesting to read how the god figure treated Adam, he "settled him in" the garden, and "brought him animals to see what he would call them." It showed care and intrigue, perhaps the god of this story created man for the same reason a man might paint a picture. As an expression of who he his self was.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

My guess is that things will get harder and harder to explain.

Probably so Foot. Part of the problem is that we're dualistic, placing each and every object or notion in a box or category. Near the top is the notion that She either exists or She doesn't, in a much looser world where this decision rests not so much on what you mean by "exist" but on your feelings about Her

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Quote:

He has to allow man the choice in this period, does he follow man's guidance, or against the grain would he seek out this gods guidance. this would resolve a second challenge set out by his adversary, namely that man is inherently self serving. and would not serve the God figure if it were not for his ever benevolent hand over them.

At first I thought you were giving the 'religious' perspective I and others object to, that pictures man and God as incompatible, that man is inherently bad, etc.

But reading it closer I see you are talking about Satan's wager with God, that every man will turn against him unless God nannies us closely. Yes, that does fit the scenario we live in.
By 'turn against him' I don't mean the usual 'commit some petty sin'. To turn against God means to deny the very nature that God gave man.

Speaking of sin, I think the essence of sin is to deny reality.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

He is giving the religious perspective, specifically, the Jehovah's Witnesses' perspective paraphrased by him.

0 Replies

@HesDeltanCaptain,

No. The only 'logic' religions thrive on is ANY axiom which purports to give a meaning to human existence. Simplistically, any axiom which is antithetical to Shakespeare's observation that ...

Life is a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury ...signifying nothing.

But essentially religion is 'metalogical' i.e. it is a social phenomenon, reified by common language, rather than a psychological one, even if it acquires psychological trappings as that socially produced entity we call 'self' deals with individual experiences and multiple group allegiances.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Speaking of sin, I think the essence of sin is to deny reality.

This part intrigues me my friend, how would one deny reality?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

@HesDeltanCaptain,
No. The only 'logic' religions thrive on is ANY axiom which purports to give a meaning to human existence. Simplistically, any axiom which is antithetical to Shakespeare's observation that ...

Life is a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury ...signifying nothing.

But essentially religion is 'metalogical' i.e. it is a social phenomenon, reified by common language, rather than a psychological one, even if it acquires psychological trappings as that socially produced entity we call 'self' deals with individual experiences and multiple group allegiances.

I guess it's almost impossible to have a discussion about God, even a hypothetical one) without religion being dragged into it. That goes with the territory.

But you what's even more pathetic is when some bullshit cliche like this one from Shakespeare is trotted out as a substitute for religion. It's like an axiom they adopt for guiding their life. And what sorry one this is. It says that if you ever see anthing that makes sense, if you think there might some pattern to life that gives meaning to existence, run the other way because everything is bullshit. Everything. Science, religion, music, love, integrity, empathy - it's all meaningless.

Yeah, a great philosophy to live by. Let me know how that works out for you.

But like many lines from Shakespeare, taken out of context, they mean the opposite of what you might think.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Quote:

Quote:
"Speaking of sin, I think the essence of sin is to deny reality."

This part intrigues me my friend, how would one deny reality?

There are unlimited ways to deny reality. Keep in mind this is all in keeping with hypothesizing a God that makes sense.

Why would an an all powerful God care about any physical act that we do? It would not affect him in any way so why would it be a sin? It isn't unless it denys reality in some way. The only reason a God that makes sense would care about anything we do is if it prevented us from realizing the reality of who and what we are. That is the only thing this God would care about.

For example, every human being knows at some level that they are more than an animal. If you deny that reality in any way, that would be a sin in that God's eyes because it prevents you from evolving into the good company that he wants. It would probably make you less happy in this life too, but that's a different story.

1 Reply

Makes sense according to whom?
To us? we're just a bunch of beer swillin' slobs.
OK, well I am, anyway. Embarrassed

Shouldn't we try to figure what makes sense according to God?

1 Reply

@Joe Sixpack,

Beer swilling slobs definitely should.

Go for it, you can probably do at least as well as organized religion has.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Sorry that my argument was couched in terms you failed to understand. Put more simply, theist religions are one method of psychological insulation against the fear of "the void", at the same time as functioning as rationalisation of the tribalism and social pecking order we have in common with other primates. The Shakespeare quotation was merely cited as one superior description of 'the void'.
Your allusion to the 'finer aspects' of human culture are of course nothing directly to do with theism even if some Western works of art might have taken inspiration from it. Note too that empathic relationships are not confined to humans whereas 'anticipation of consequences' does seem to be, as does the need for insulation from them.

Perhaps you should think a little more deeply before you toss out words like'bullshit' and 'pathetic'.

1 Reply

A God That Makes Sense?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know