The Problem with Belief in God

[sojourner]

@sojourner, @Truthseeker9, @Trailblazer -

If all of those reasons for why religions differ are true, and if the reasons why the stories and actions of the "messengers" differ are true, and God really is allowing multiple many people to tell wildly different stories (EVEN DURING THE SAME TIME-PERIOD AND IN THE SAME PLACE - let's not kid ourselves here), then He will forgive me if I can't take any of it seriously.

Last thought - if I told my wife (someone I love very much) to go to the bus station and await further instructions, which I would send to her through 5 different "messengers" (for whatever incomprehensible reason I might do this) and then when they each relayed their information to her from me, she noticed that some of it was conflicting, some of it didn't sound like instruction I would give, and some of it was possibly even completely against her own code of ethics. Do you honestly think I wouldn't get an earful the next time I saw her?! And I would completely deserve it!

I think all we’re asked to do is to speak light to our truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think all we’re asked to do is to speak light to our truth.

Which is, I feel, exactly what I try to do. My "truth" being that I don't know... and know that I don't know for very good reason. And I truly believe that no one else knows either. That, in fact, they can't.

 

[Trailblazer]

If all of those reasons for why religions differ are true, and if the reasons why the stories and actions of the "messengers" differ are true, and God really is allowing multiple many people to tell wildly different stories (EVEN DURING THE SAME TIME-PERIOD AND IN THE SAME PLACE - let's not kid ourselves here), then He will forgive me if I can't take any of it seriously.

There is a simple answer to that. In every time period, there is only one Messenger who speaks for God. That is why Jesus said:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Then in the next time period another Messenger speaks for God, and so on.

[Last thought - if I told my wife (someone I love very much) to go to the bus station and await further instructions, which I would send to her through 5 different "messengers" (for whatever incomprehensible reason I might do this) and then when they each relayed their information to her from me, she noticed that some of it was conflicting, some of it didn't sound like instruction I would give, and some of it was possibly even completely against her own code of ethics. Do you honestly think I wouldn't get an earful the next time I saw her?! And I would completely deserve it!

None of the actual messages from the actual Messengers are conflicting. Each successive message builds upon the previous message. They are different but not conflicting. They only appear conflicting because the religious followers have misinterpreted the original message such that it does not represent what God intended to convey.
For example, Christians have misinterpreted the message of Jesus so it appears to contradict the message of Baha’u’llah. In reality, Baha’u’llah fulfills the promises of Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

The redundancy in the univserse is a testament to God being very great and that it was made to show his glory. Of it man is a very small part.

But if H sap sap is God's 'purpose' for the universe, the utter inefficiency of the program remains appalling.

Yet this was for God's purpose, because God delights to exalt the weak rather than the pretentious.

You agree with Luke 1:52-53 (gorgeously set to music in Bach's Magnificat): He has displaced the powerful from their seats, and has raised up the humble / He has filled the poor with good things, and sent the rich away empty.

No [he] hasn't. Social and economic inequality is presently the greatest single problem for humans. If the quotes from Luke were true, that wouldn't be possible.

Man always has a choice.

No, man doesn't. Man must always and only do exactly what God perfectly foresaw before [he] made the universe, and as I pointed out, whatever happens in the universe must perfectly reflect God's will at that time, whether or not [[he] subsequently made [him]self bound by time and ignorant of the future. There can still be no deviation from what [he]'d previously foreseen and intended.

 

[blü 2]

you simply apply too much of your terms.....

They're not my terms. I never said God was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or perfect. I don't even have the faintest idea what a God with objective existence could be.

and time does not exist

Really?

What do clocks measure?

 

[Thief]

They're not my terms. I never said God was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or perfect. I don't even have the faintest idea what a God with objective existence could be.

Really?

What do clocks measure?

God would be top of the line life form
none greater

and time is not a force or a substance
time is a quotient
a measure
movement the item calculated

 

[blü 2]

God would be top of the line life form
none greater

What test are we using to determine greatness here?

and time is not a force or a substance

Neither are breadth, width and depth. So what?

time is a quotient
a measure
movement the item calculated

A quotient is what you get when you divide one number by another. So with the formula Speed = Distance / Time, Speed is the quotient. But if we express it Distance = Speed * Time, there's no quotient. If and only if we choose to express the same relationship by Time = Distance / Speed is Time the quotient.

So what?

 

[Thief]

What test are we using to determine greatness here?
Neither are breadth, width and depth. So what?
A quotient is what you get when you divide one number by another. So with the formula Speed = Distance / Time, Speed is the quotient. But if we express it Distance = Speed * Time, there's no quotient. If and only if we choose to express the same relationship by Time = Distance / Speed is Time the quotient.

So what?

and it remains.....time can exist.....only in your head

 

[blü 2]

and it remains.....time can exist.....only in your head

Time is one of the four dimensions of spacetime. Spacetime and its dimensions are real. You know that because you live in it.

You've shown nothing to the contrary. Simply repeating your claim doesn't suddenly make it correct.

 

[Thief]

Time is one of the four dimensions of spacetime. Spacetime and its dimensions are real. You know that because you live in it.

You've shown nothing to the contrary. Simply repeating your claim doesn't suddenly make it correct.

time is not a force or a substance

your denial is noted

 

[blü 2]

time is not a force or a substance

It may have substance: the dimensions may be manifestations of energy. But regardless, it is a dimension, one of the four of our spacetime.

So time is as real as length, breadth and depth (and they're all real).

your denial is noted

Which reminds me, since you didn't get back to me: what was that definition of 'greatness' we're to use when considering gods?

 

[Thief]

it is a dimension, one of the four of our spacetime.

space is real enough

time is not a force or substance

traveling can be calculated......
such effort is cognitive.....all in your head

as for greatness
in the scheme of superlatives.....top of the line
the Greatest of all

the Almighty

 

[Milton Platt]

The debate between the belief and lack of and rejection of creator will not cease until evidence is found for the existence of such a being.

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist (proving a false positive) And the only way to determine that there is no such god in existence would be that no evidence that supports the belief in god be found.

Those that reserve their belief until evidence is found, will continue to wait. And either they lean towards the possibility of a deity or the unlikelihood of a deity or creator.

And believers simply do not need evidence, and use the lack of evidence of a god as evidence for the possibility of a god. Or make the blind assumption that there is one, because we haven't found evidence yet, the old "I don't know therefore god." What I would coin gnostic ignorance.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate, the death and wholesale slaughter done in the name of different gods? Are they so selfish that they must to keep their god to themselves? And when asked to explain many say it is a feeling.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong. There are too many loop holes and obvious gaps in knowledge and understanding of our own existence and what exists around us for such inspiration to be "divine" That such a being would impart some of it's infinite knowledge upon us, only for us to document it, only to find later through our own devices that that given knowledge is incorrect.

In my opinion divine knowledge that has been proven demonstrably false, is not divine, it is the wild conjuring of the imagination when presented with a reality those that experienced it at the time did not understand and created an answer to appease the masses.

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Humanity has only very recently began to take its first steps on its own. And hopefully we will continue to rehabilitate our species. And discard these temporary solutions to the unknown. Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

as far as disproving the existence of a god...it cannot be done with 100% certainty for all possible concepts of a deity. But it is quite possible to disprove the existence of most if not all of the thus far proposed deities.

 

[Cacotopia]

as far as disproving the existence of a god...it cannot be done with 100% certainty for all possible concepts of a deity. But it is quite possible to disprove the existence of most if not all of the thus far proposed deities.

True ones with holy texts yes. disproving their claims with science.

But regardless certain believers simply do not care about the truth. Their beliefs are more important.