Gods responsibility

[cottage]

How do you know? What makes you so sure that you feel you have to use an exclamation point, O Skeptical One? What is your evidence that God is not that?

How do I know? Because your statement makes no sense, it’s just opaqueness and obfuscation. If God is a creative force and things exist then God is the creator of things or he is not. If he isn’t the creator then he isn’t the Supreme Being. And since you have stated to me in a past discussion that ‘God is the giver of life’ then by your own submission God is the creator.

Sure it does, in a world where we know about the big bang and physical cosmology -- in a world where such a being has never been shown to exist. It makes perfect sense.

I agree that indeed it does in one respect, along with all other things that have never been shown to exist.

Jeez, do you hear yourself?? "No he isn't! By definition... whether or not any such being exists." You're so sure of a definition at the beginning of your post, but then retreat into rampant skepticism by the fourth sentence.

Again you make no sense at all. Look, if you understand that a definition of God does not imply actual existence, which of course it doesn’t, then clearly it cannot be said of me ‘that I’m retreating into rampant scepticism’! God remains logically possible.

We can't define God. Theology simply doesn't seek to do that. Theology seeks to describe God, as far as we are able, and for such purposes as the particular argument or exercise demands. So don't stamp your foot at me and claim to have a definition, because your "definition" is no more plausible than my description.

But your definition is meaningless. And who are you to speak for ‘theology’, since it happens that a great many theologians and theists define God as the omnipotent creator? And although God may be defined, a definition does not award the object with existence or imply truth; but if you’re presuming to describe God then that self-evidently implies knowledge, which you are also saying, contradictorily, cannot be had. I’m sorry but your arguments are muddled.

Sooo... A creative principle is culpable for the holocaust? And your tirade here?

Now I can see I’ve made you angry but what you still haven’t made is any real sense. A creative principle isn’t an entity; and a principle is a tool, a methodology, a theorem or a system, or a necessary truth.

You seem to have no clear idea of what it is you want to say or where you’re hoping to take the argument.

 

[sojourner]

How do I know? Because your statement makes no sense, it’s just opaqueness and obfuscation. If God is a creative force and things exist then God is the creator of things or he is not. If he isn’t the creator then he isn’t the Supreme Being. And since you have stated to me in a past discussion that ‘God is the giver of life’ then by your own submission God is the creator.

What makes you believe that God is "the Supreme Being?" Perhaps God is "Supreme Being," meaning that God is Being, itself. "Giver of life" is a metaphoric statement -- a description; not a definition.

I agree that indeed it does in one respect, along with all other things that have never been shown to exist.

God isn't a thing. Therefore, God doesn't exist, as a thing exists. But God is existence, itself. Everything that exists is part and parcel of God.

God remains logically possible.

Not if God doesn't exist in the way you define. If something doesn't exist, it can't logically be said to exist -- no matter how many gymnastics you go through.

But your definition is meaningless.

Oh? Why? And why is it any less meaningful than the one you're using?

And who are you to speak for ‘theology’, since it happens that a great many theologians and theists define God as the omnipotent creator?

And who are you to speak for theology? Or to be the self-appointed guardian of theological integrity?

And although God may be defined, a definition does not award the object with existence or imply truth

Yet... you use it as such an award...

if you’re presuming to describe God then that self-evidently implies knowledge, which you are also saying, contradictorily, cannot be had.

So... a definition does not imply knowledge? But a description does?

Now I can see I’ve made you angry

No. You haven't.

what you still haven’t made is any real sense. A creative principle isn’t an entity

Right! Which means that (as I've stated), it isn't culpable for evil deeds of human beings.
make sense now?

and a principle is a tool, a methodology, a theorem or a system, or a necessary truth.

Right again! See? I do make sense: God, as creative principle, is a methodology or necessary truth by which we derive meaning for our existence, and is not culpable for evil deeds done by human beings.

Clear now?

 

[sojourner]

So you're an atheist too, then?

No.

So then why call yourself "Christian", then? I mean, you could take good ideas from any belief system you pleased without declaring yourself to be a member of one religion or another.

Because I derive meaning from the Christian mythos, and follow the principles put forth by the Tradition of Christianity.

So does this mean you do agree now that Christianity - along with many other religions - really does make literal claims?

I've never claimed otherwise.

I'm not sure you're getting my point: why would someone who takes Christian doctrine as a metaphor consider themselves a Christian at all?

Why would Jesus, who felt free to refute Jewish Law, consider himself Jewish at all?
The doctrine speaks to the truth of the metaphors, not the factuality of the metaphors, themselves.

They've rejected the literal truth of the claims of Christianity, and by doing so, they've dissociated themselves from something that's defined Christianity throughout its history.

Not necessarily.

However, I recognize that there are serious fundamental differences between the beliefs of "God is a metaphor"-type Christians and the beliefs of the traditions that they draw their "Christian" label from.

I didn't say, "God is a metaphor." I said that the typical theological constructions use metaphor to describe God.

Of course, the fact that I hold God at arm's length is what I think makes me an atheist.

I'm not sure that's what makes one an atheist. AFAIK, what makes one an atheist is the assertion that there is no God. "Holding God at arm's length" makes one -- at worst -- an agnostic. Are you sure you're an atheist?

 

[Bird123]

Say some scientist creates a perfect robot with freewill and decides to let it loose on the world. Then the robot decides to murder most of humanity because it became evil. Is that the robots fault or the scientist who let it loose on the world?

There doesn't seem to be justification for god with this, if he intentionally allowed evil then it follows it is gods fault. Even despite some gift of free will, we would put our creations on a leash or face the consequences.

AS I look around this world, I see everything works so well. All the physics add up so well to make such a wonderful working system. If God created such a wonderful system, why isn't the human factor created just as wonderful?? IT IS!!! It is easy to pick one point, blind to the entire picture and make major errors in judgement.

Yes, there is a much larger picture. It does all add up. Hmmm? Could there be good reasons to allow murder? Clearly, there is much more going on in this world and with people than blame and fault.

Search on how it does all add up rather than how bad God is for allowing it. The answers will arrive much quicker if you do.

Lots of people look at this world and see only a mess. When you can look at this world and see the MASTERPIECE, then you will begin to understand God.

 

[Thruve]

AS I look around this world, I see everything works so well. All the physics add up so well to make such a wonderful working system. If God created such a wonderful system, why isn't the human factor created just as wonderful?? IT IS!!! It is easy to pick one point, blind to the entire picture and make major errors in judgement.

Yes, there is a much larger picture. It does all add up. Hmmm? Could there be good reasons to allow murder? Clearly, there is much more going on in this world and with people than blame and fault.

Search on how it does all add up rather than how bad God is for allowing it. The answers will arrive much quicker if you do.

Lots of people look at this world and see only a mess. When you can look at this world and see the MASTERPIECE, then you will begin to understand God.

Frubie for awesome!

 

[Ingledsva]

AS I look around this world, I see everything works so well. All the physics add up so well to make such a wonderful working system. If God created such a wonderful system, why isn't the human factor created just as wonderful?? IT IS!!! It is easy to pick one point, blind to the entire picture and make major errors in judgement.

Yes, there is a much larger picture. It does all add up. Hmmm? Could there be good reasons to allow murder? Clearly, there is much more going on in this world and with people than blame and fault.

Search on how it does all add up rather than how bad God is for allowing it. The answers will arrive much quicker if you do.

Lots of people look at this world and see only a mess. When you can look at this world and see the MASTERPIECE, then you will begin to understand God.

Which "God?"



*

 

[Thief]

Judging by your replies in this thread, I don't think you've thought things through either. There have been several times when I've brought up some contradiction in what you're saying, but you try to shut down the discussion by saying that it's not "theological".


Of course, the fact that I hold God at arm's length is what I think makes me an atheist.

That's not theological.

God is called...Almighty.
Bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
If not then He might be.....
Pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated.

and you hold Him at arm's length?

I know some grappling techniques that would wrenched your arm from socket.
You would need a surgeon to put it back.
It would never be the same.

Oh...that's right....you're trying to be theological.

 

[cottage]

What makes you believe that God is "the Supreme Being?" Perhaps God is "Supreme Being," meaning that God is Being, itself. "Giver of life" is a metaphoric statement -- a description; not a definition.

The Supreme Being is by its very definition being itself – or as Kant said the ens realissimum, roughly translated as meaning the ‘most real thing’. Self-evidently, if it wasn’t then it wouldn’t be ‘supreme’.

God isn't a thing. Therefore, God doesn't exist, as a thing exists. But God is existence, itself. Everything that exists is part and parcel of God.

If God is existence, and existence is a thing, then it therefore follows that God is a thing. The antithesis is easily demonstrated for the obverse is to say God is a no-thing, i.e. nothing.

Not if God doesn't exist in the way you define. If something doesn't exist, it can't logically be said to exist -- no matter how many gymnastics you go through.

A thing most certainly doesn’t have to exist to be logically possible. Does a hundred foot human exist? Logical possibility simply means a proposition is not self-contradictory.

Oh? Why? And why is it any less meaningful than the one you're using?

See my comments at the foot of the page.

And who are you to speak for theology? Or to be the self-appointed guardian of theological integrity?

I’m doing no such thing! I was simply quoting a common fact; it was you that was presuming to speak for theology: ‘Theology seeks to describe God, as far as we are able, and for such purposes as the particular argument or exercise demands’.

Yet... you use it as such an award...

Really? Then show me where I’ve claimed existence for deities or have given arguments for such?

So... a definition does not imply knowledge? But a description does?

When some distinct thing is invented or surmised, limited only by what can be imagined, it cannot be other than the definition lest we contradict ourselves, even though it never existed. There can only be definitions, and not a description of God. If you say God is such-and-such or God is so-and-so then you are presuming knowledge of God, when actually all you’re doing voicing an opinion that if God exists then he will be as such-and-such or so-and-so, which is to proffer a definition.

No. You haven't.

But I clearly did make you angry judging by the sudden appearance of all those sharp little remarks in your last reply to me, though provocation honestly wasn’t intended.

Right! Which means that (as I've stated), it isn't culpable for evil deeds of human beings.
make sense now?

No, it doesn't. For you say this: “Since that's how God created us, God respects our sovereignty enough to let us "sit in our own soup." That by your own admission is an acting entity, not a mere ‘creative principle’, which in any case still doesn’t make sense.

Right again! See? I do make sense: God, as creative principle, is a methodology or necessary truth by which we derive meaning for our existence, and is not culpable for evil deeds done by human beings.

Clear now?

Yes, perfectly! You speak of a God that is not the creator, but just a methodology or a principle, a non-being with no power to intervene or directly influence lives, who cannot listen to our prayers or ease our pain, who cannot offer redemption or be loving and merciful. And what is the difference between this and no actual God at all? The answer is there is no difference whatsoever. And that of course is the position of atheism.

So to sum up, either a creator God exist or it does not. If it does exist as such then by definition it has ultimate responsibility for what occurs in the world. But if there is no creator God that takes an interest in the world then again that is entirely in accordance with the facts and hence the atheistic position is confirmed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes you believe that God is "the Supreme Being?" Perhaps God is "Supreme Being," meaning that God is Being, itself. "Giver of life" is a metaphoric statement -- a description; not a definition.

We already have a word for "being": "being". Why call it "God"? Are you trying to convey something about "being" that isn't captured in the original term? If so, what additional baggage are you adding by using the term "God"? What separate meaning do you have for the term "God" that lets you say "yes, the term 'being' fits what I mean by 'God'"?

If you aren't adding additional meaning, why use the term "God" at all? Why not just stick to "being"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know some grappling techniques that would wrenched your arm from socket.
You would need a surgeon to put it back.
It would never be the same.

Are you trying to threaten me?

 

[sojourner]

You speak of a God that is not the creator, but just a methodology or a principle, a non-being with no power to intervene or directly influence lives, who cannot listen to our prayers or ease our pain, who cannot offer redemption or be loving and merciful. And what is the difference between this and no actual God at all? The answer is there is no difference whatsoever. And that of course is the position of atheism.

So to sum up, either a creator God exist or it does not. If it does exist as such then by definition it has ultimate responsibility for what occurs in the world. But if there is no creator God that takes an interest in the world then again that is entirely in accordance with the facts and hence the atheistic position is confirmed.

When did I ever say that "God is just a methodology or a principle?" You're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against that. Sure, I see God as the Divine Principle, the Creative Principle, and I see the metaphors we use as a methodology for creating meaning, but God is so much more than just the sum of human imagination, and this is what you don't get, because you're so busy trying to define God as one thing or another.

God is life, God's body is the world and God's breath is the wind. God is Existence, itself. And those things are neither "principles," nor "methodologies." God isn't a "non-being." God is Being, itself. In what way does sunlight and moon phase not influence life? In what way do we not listen to each other -- or the animals not listen to the sounds of the forest? In what way do cool breezes and babbling brooks not ease our pain? In what way are acts of friendship and forgiveness, the healing of disease and injury not redemptive? In what way is a female gorilla who scoops up an injured boy not loving or merciful? Those things all manifest God.

Sure, God has responsibility for the world, because the world is God's body. But God is not culpable for our actions. You're blurring an important line between universalism and particularity.

 

[cottage]

When did I ever say that "God is just a methodology or a principle?" You're putting words in my mouth and then arguing against that. Sure, I see God as the Divine Principle, the Creative Principle, and I see the metaphors we use as a methodology for creating meaning, but God is so much more than just the sum of human imagination, and this is what you don't get, because you're so busy trying to define God as one thing or another.

God is life, God's body is the world and God's breath is the wind. God is Existence, itself. And those things are neither "principles," nor "methodologies." God isn't a "non-being." God is Being, itself. In what way does sunlight and moon phase not influence life? In what way do we not listen to each other -- or the animals not listen to the sounds of the forest? In what way do cool breezes and babbling brooks not ease our pain? In what way are acts of friendship and forgiveness, the healing of disease and injury not redemptive? In what way is a female gorilla who scoops up an injured boy not loving or merciful? Those things all manifest God.

The above is nothing more than a confection of fluffy warm platitudes and every-day empiricism. If God is defined as existence itself, the natural world with no intervening powers, then there is no marked difference at all in what you’re alluding to and my humanist view. I see beauty and charity in nature as well as violence and hardship. As well as the captivating wonders of our world we know it also a dark and dangerous place, ugly and unforgiving and subject not some supposed ‘God’ but certainly answering to the phenomenon of cause and effect. Your argument marks you as naturalist and not a theist.

Sure, God has responsibility for the world, because the world is God's body. But God is not culpable for our actions. You're blurring an important line between universalism and particularity.

What do you mean ‘Our actions?’ If there is a God responsible for the world then he is culpable for every child that dies of Leukaemia, every epileptic infant, those born blind, mental illness, every animal torn apart by another, the storms and droughts that cause deaths and disease, the very trials of the ageing process that cause debilitation and anxiety and every instance of metaphysical suffering. For all its aesthetic charms the world is also a cruel place that makes no distinction between moral goodness and moral turpitude. There certainly is no benevolent God, no worshipful being for whom those terms are logically necessary.

 

[sojourner]

The above is nothing more than a confection of fluffy warm platitudes and every-day empiricism.

I disagree.

If God is defined as existence itself, the natural world with no intervening powers, then there is no marked difference at all in what you’re alluding to and my humanist view.

Did I say there were "no intervening powers?" I did not.

Your argument marks you as naturalist and not a theist.

Not quite. For God is more than nature.

If there is a God responsible for the world then he is culpable for every child that dies of Leukaemia, every epileptic infant, those born blind, mental illness, every animal torn apart by another, the storms and droughts that cause deaths and disease, the very trials of the ageing process that cause debilitation and anxiety and every instance of metaphysical suffering.

I disagree. Culpability is subject to judgment. By whose judgment is God held to be culpable?

There certainly is no benevolent God, no worshipful being for whom those terms are logically necessary.

I disagree.

 

[sojourner]

We already have a word for "being": "being". Why call it "God"? Are you trying to convey something about "being" that isn't captured in the original term? If so, what additional baggage are you adding by using the term "God"? What separate meaning do you have for the term "God" that lets you say "yes, the term 'being' fits what I mean by 'God'"?

If you aren't adding additional meaning, why use the term "God" at all? Why not just stick to "being"?

Because, while God is Being, I believe God is also more than just that.

 

[Thief]

Are you trying to threaten me?

No....just making sport of you keeping God at arm's length.
He is the 'alledged' Maker of that same arm!

 

[Bird123]

Which "God?"



*

Deep down we all know God because we have all been with God.

Everybody wants to rule the world. People shape their view of God to fit their will. If you follow others, won't this lead you away from God?

Leave the beliefs alone. Work at discovering what is. All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. In this time based causal universe, God's actions can be seen and are not altered by mankind. In time, you will not have to ask which God for you will already know.

 

[Ingledsva]

Deep down we all know God because we have all been with God.

Everybody wants to rule the world. People shape their view of God to fit their will. If you follow others, won't this lead you away from God?

Leave the beliefs alone. Work at discovering what is. All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. In this time based causal universe, God's actions can be seen and are not altered by mankind. In time, you will not have to ask which God for you will already know.

Oh believe me, - I've said here many times, that people should be Spiritual, not religious.


*

 

[cottage]

I disagree.

By all means disagree but what you described are just examples of the experiential world and sentiments that we all share, atheist and theist alike.

Did I say there were "no intervening powers?" I did not.

But there is no evidence of an intervening power in the natural world. And in any case if God intervenes then he must be more than a metaphor or a principle but an actionable entity in fact, which you’ve previously said he is not.

Not quite. For God is more than nature.

Then please be good enough to explain in what way God is ‘more.’

I disagree. Culpability is subject to judgment. By whose judgment is God held to be culpable?

It’s not a matter for arbitration; it is self-evident. If God is responsible for the world, as you agree that he is, then what happens in the world is his responsibility. It’s a tautological truth, and true because it cannot logically be false.

I disagree.

Then please explain?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because, while God is Being, I believe God is also more than just that.

What else?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Say some scientist creates a perfect robot with freewill and decides to let it loose on the world. Then the robot decides to murder most of humanity because it became evil. Is that the robots fault or the scientist who let it loose on the world?

There doesn't seem to be justification for god with this, if he intentionally allowed evil then it follows it is gods fault. Even despite some gift of free will, we would put our creations on a leash or face the consequences.

Is the scientist omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent? Yes or no?