Who is God?

[DNB]

Hi, DNB. Remember -- God created Adam to live forever on this earth. He (Adam) didn't make it but that doesn't mean that God did not create Adam (and subsequent humans) to live on the earth. The following may help to reason on the matter. This applies to the earth and life on it, but there are those who are taken from the earth and will be with Jesus in heaven. More possibly about that later.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102021225?q=lives+forever+on+earth&p=par

Sorry YoursTrue, but I'm not that well versed in eschatological times, and the article that you posted is a bit long for my attention span right now.
If it's ok with you, I'm just going to decline to elaborate any further on the specific issue of the elect residing both in heaven and on earth at a future in God's plan.
Thank you for the insight and suggestion all the same.

 

[DNB]

I do not know. It is not very scientific to say that. There are possibilities, many scientists opine that (including Hawkins, the modern-day Einstein).

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But, the psychology of man, amongst many other created features of this planet, necessitate the existence of both a purposeful and spiritual Creator/Designer/Governor etc.

This forum is dedicated to discovering the meaning of life, what other creature on earth but man, have both the capacity and interest to endeavour to contemplate and debate such an issue? This is not the result of inanimate and arbitrary substances, randomly coalescing to produce the universe and all that it contains, as we know it. And absolute impossibility

 

[DNB]

Well, it's true that we haven't yet demonstrated a natural path from chemistry to biochemistry, so we don't know how the first cell (or cells) formed, but we're working on it, and every now and then we add a new insight, a new possibility, a new explanation of a possible stage, to our kit. No evidence suggests that there's nothing there to be found.

And once we have the first successful self-reproducing cell, the rest is evolution. The world of living things can evolve a great deal with more than 3 billion years to evolve in. I assume you're familiar with "tree" diagrams showing how things evolved in various ways, and how each of those ways went on to become different versions of their source.

You haven't the slightest evidence for such an architect, what it could be or how it could operate to control structures, or genetic developments. If you did, you'd have the immediate and intense attention of science.

But apart from folklore, which provided explanations back when evidence-based explanations weren't possible, you have nothing ─ arguments from incredulity have no rational traction.

The most compelling factor, in my opinion, in regard to the evidence in favour of the existence of God, is man's overt and undeniable spiritual nature. There is not a culture anywhere in the world, from the beginning of history, that did not seek the transcendent, the immaterial, unseen realm.

Why are atheists oblivious to this axiomatic dimension in man? Man's behaviour clearly suggests that his motives are not solely based on pragmatism, nor sound rationale. But, rather, more often than not, pretention and ostentation, hedonism, selfishness and gluttony, apathy and gratuitous cruelty, gossip and sensationalism, etc...

How is it possible that you believe that we came from stardust and protoplasm, with these utterly self-destructive, innate dispositions and propensities?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry YoursTrue, but I'm not that well versed in eschatological times, and the article that you posted is a bit long for my attention span right now.
If it's ok with you, I'm just going to decline to elaborate any further on the specific issue of the elect residing both in heaven and on earth at a future in God's plan.
Thank you for the insight and suggestion all the same.

You are welcome. I have found the articles at jw.org or wol.jw.org to be of great help in reasoning for me, but I do understand about concentration. I try to keep my posts as brief as possible, sometimes they get long though. Take care.

 

[blü 2]

The most compelling factor, in my opinion, in regard to the evidence in favour of the existence of God, is man's overt and undeniable spiritual nature. There is not a culture anywhere in the world, from the beginning of history, that did not seek the transcendent, the immaterial, unseen realm.

Why are atheists oblivious to this axiomatic dimension in man? Man's behaviour clearly suggests that his motives are not solely based on pragmatism, nor sound rationale. But, rather, more often than not, pretention and ostentation, hedonism, selfishness and gluttony, apathy and gratuitous cruelty, gossip and sensationalism, etc...

How is it possible that you believe that we came from stardust and protoplasm, with these utterly self-destructive, innate dispositions and propensities?

I'm not being humorous or sarcastic when I ask you whether you think our old dog didn't have a spiritual nature, a strong sense of empathy and communion with the emotions of our family?

We have found that humans have evolved with built-in moral tendencies ─ the obvious one is child nurture and protection, a common tendency in nature; and more (but not completely) exclusively, and appropriate to the evolutionary advantages of living in groups and working cooperatively, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. To these we can add an evolved conscience and an evolved capacity for empathy. (I described one of the experiments on which this is based >here<.)

And for our spiritual nature, we also have an evolved reaction to the unexpected and the unknown, in very many cases to instantly devise a narrative hypothesis in our head to explain it, which may or not be supported or refuted by further evidence. You hear an unexpected noise by day, and think it might be a (say) helicopter, or by night, and think it might be a (say) stray cat. So way back when your very distant ancestors saw the phenomenon of lightning, heard the consequent thunder, they required an explanation, and provided it in the form of an imagined purposeful agent.

Or back in my student days when I drove a taxi at times, when a piece of timely good fortune gave me a good fare on a slow night, I found myself murmuring 'Thanks, TG!' and then, having noticed that this is what I'd done, realized that TG stood for Taxi God. In other words, I'd gratefully attributed good luck to (once again) an agent. This fits in with the line attributed to DG Rossetti, 'The worst time for an atheist is when he feels thankful and has no one to thank.' In other words, I think we've evolved to attribute agency to the unknown, good or bad, because we're built to need an explanation.

But then, my own position considering these things (after being raised a Pisco, more as a matter of good manners) has itself evolved over time. I think "objective reality" (here "reality" for short) means "the world external to me, which I know about through my senses"; that "truth" is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with reality; and that a fact is an accurate statement about reality.

The problem is that the only way gods and other supernatural beings are known to exist is as ideas / concepts / things imagined in individual brains. Thus not only have there been countless different gods throughout human history with countless different attributes, but they're not compatible ─ they contradict the idea that there's a supernatural realm that humans in some unexplained way have access to. Instead they're cultural artifacts. Thus there are no photos, videos, interviews with God, just ideas; and thus the Abrahamic God is described only in terms of imaginary attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfection, being eternal, being infinite. There's no description of God with objective existence such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

And the world behaves exactly as if God / gods / supernatural beings were only ideas, concepts, cultural artifacts. God doesn't stop children from drowning in backyard swimming pools, doesn't prevent the massacres at schools, doesn't do or say anything. People ─ our fellow humans ─ do all the saying and all the doing (if any).

I suspect that the benefit of belief in a god is tribal, part of the all-important tribal identity to which loyalty is owed and cooperation is made possible. Other parts of that identity are having in common language, customs, folk histories, just-so stories, and an imagined tribal protector ─ which is how Yahweh started out, one of the gods the Canaanite pantheon, apparently then with a consort, Asherah, as was customary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would happily determine whether I wished to be a sincere and devout adherent if only there were something more substantial than words and concepts to adhere to.

...

Then explain your understanding of the world without using words or other signs. You are using a double standard of in effect cognition. Your words and thinking make sense to you, but other words and thinking don't make sense to you, so you demand not using words.
Please express that without using words.
Don't use words when you answer and don't use cognitive abstracts like axioms. Do everything without words.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burned in the fire to their gods.

Is that historically true? Or just victor's tale.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, the psychology of man, amongst many other created features of this planet, necessitate the existence of both a purposeful and spiritual Creator/Designer/Governor etc. This forum is dedicated to discovering the meaning of life, what other creature on earth but man, have both the capacity and interest to endeavour to contemplate and debate such an issue? This is not the result of inanimate and arbitrary substances, randomly coalescing to produce the universe and all that it contains, as we know it. And absolute impossibility.

No. Millions of atheists (probably billions, China and elsewhere) do not need any such entity.
Sure, we are debating the issue. Debate always has two sides.
You need to provide your evidence. Many in science think that it is possible.

The most compelling factor, in my opinion, in regard to the evidence in favour of the existence of God, is man's overt and undeniable spiritual nature.
Why are atheists oblivious to this axiomatic dimension in man?
How is it possible that you believe that we came from stardust and protoplasm, with these utterly self-destructive, innate dispositions and propensities?

Why do you call it 'spriritual'. Atheists and even some religions do not believe in existence of soul. 'Anatta' in Buddhism, 'Maya' in my type of strict Advaita Hinduism.
There are unanswered questions and the debate is for the answer of those questions. Why should we start with a presumption?
Should anxioms be believed? Buddha said 'do not' - "nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)" (Kesamutti Sutta).
There is no destruction ever, only there is a change in the form of things.

 

[dybmh]

Is that historically true? Or just victor's tale.

Does it matter? If it's not true, then the command and the justification are ignored. If it is true then the command is justified. Either way the story has a lesson.

 

[Alien826]

I define good as constructive and evil as destructive. In most conversations of morals, the wording is usually benefit and harm. The 10/90 split didn't come from me, BTW. That was from the person I was replying to.

I've jumped in here and haven't followed what came before, so I'll just address what you say.

Constructive and destructive are not defined enough. The Nazis constructed a lot of weapons that harmed many people (good?). The Allies in WW2 destroyed the weapons and the Nazis (evil?).

That said, this is how I see it:

The goal is not just good, but very good.

Genesis 1:31:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.​

Perfection = good. Perfection + Imperfection that improves over time = very good. The one is quantitativley more than the other.

That doesn't make sense. "Perfection" is the most "whatever" that a thing can be. Perfectly good = as good as it can be. If you "add" imperfection, then it is no longer perfect, which reduces its "goodness" and if you go on to add improvement then the best you can expect is a return to perfection, which you had before you started messing with it. So what you have is perfection that is diminished then restored, which must be inferior (in terms of goodness) to "perfection left alone" as it has a period of time in which it is not perfect.

God already has perfection, that exists in the divine realm. Hosts of angels on a procession, praising and doing God's bidding in perfect unison with no errors in anyway. That's good. But creating something flawed, and then teaching this flawed thing to repair itself? That's amazing! That's like the difference between making a picture and making a puzzle. Or maybe writing a story compared to writing a riddle. Or maybe a map compared to a scavenger hunt. It takes much more skill to create both the flaw and the remedy, rather than just perfection. Creating all three: perfection, the flaw, and the remedy? That's very good.

I don't know how this would apply to a God that supposedly can create anything with zero effort (you may not subscribe to that definition), but in human terms creating things with flaws is easy, we do it all the time. Going on to improve the flawed thing to perfection is much more of a trick, but in essence no different from creating perfection in the first place, which is very hard indeed. Consider the law of diminishing returns (where it takes more and more effort to get from 90% to 95% then 95% to 99% and from 99% to 100%).

So, depending on your definition of God, we either have a being where any creation has the same level of "amazingness" (because they all take zero effort) or one where perfection is the most difficult thing of all.

 

[dybmh]

I've jumped in here and haven't followed what came before, so I'll just address what you say.

Constructive and destructive are not defined enough. The Nazis constructed a lot of weapons that harmed many people (good?). The Allies in WW2 destroyed the weapons and the Nazis (evil?).

The Nazis were net destructive. The Allies were net constructive.

That doesn't make sense. "Perfection" is the most "whatever" that a thing can be. Perfectly good = as good as it can be. If you "add" imperfection, then it is no longer perfect, which reduces its "goodness" and if you go on to add improvement then the best you can expect is a return to perfection, which you had before you started messing with it. So what you have is perfection that is diminished then restored, which must be inferior (in terms of goodness) to "perfection left alone" as it has a period of time in which it is not perfect.

It makes sense if there are two realms, one which is perfect, and another where the flaw and the remedy are simultaneously created.

For example, Picaso. He did amazing realistic work, and also amazing abstract paintings. If he only did realism, it's quantitatively less. And if he only did abstract, it's quantitatively less. Doing both is so much more.

I don't know how this would apply to a God that supposedly can create anything with zero effort (you may not subscribe to that definition)

I do.

, but in human terms creating things with flaws is easy, we do it all the time.

But it's not the same as creating the flaw and the remedy simultaneously. Puzzle, riddle, scavenger hunt...

Going on to improve the flawed thing to perfection is much more of a trick, but in essence no different from creating perfection in the first place, which is very hard indeed. Consider the law of diminishing returns (where it takes more and more effort to get from 90% to 95% then 95% to 99% and from 99% to 100%).

This isn't what I'm describing.

So, depending on your definition of God, we either have a being where any creation has the same level of "amazingness" (because they all take zero effort) or one where perfection is the most difficult thing of all.

It's the most amazing thing of all because it's effortless. Compare a thug to a pickpocket. Or perhaps Clapton. He makes it look effortless.

 

[Alien826]

The Nazis were net destructive. The Allies were net constructive.

That's dubious (ask the citizens of Dresden), but even if you are correct, it's just a bad example on my part. The fact remains that destruction can be good and construction bad. It depends what you construct or destroy.

It makes sense if there are two realms, one which is perfect, and another where the flaw and the remedy are simultaneously created.

For example, Picaso. He did amazing realistic work, and also amazing abstract paintings. If he only did realism, it's quantitatively less. And if he only did abstract, it's quantitatively less. Doing both is so much more.

Which of Picasso's work was flawed and how was it repaired? I mean I don't see how that's an example. I suppose that in human terms doing more is better than doing less, but only if the things are all good. They say that Hitler made the trains run on time, and had the Volkswagen "bug" made. Both good things I guess, but the holocaust kind of cancelled that out. I mean, we can't just add up things regardless of what they are.

I do.

OK.

But it's not the same as creating the flaw and the remedy simultaneously. Puzzle, riddle, scavenger hunt...



This isn't what I'm describing.



It's the most amazing thing of all because it's effortless. Compare a thug to a pickpocket. Or perhaps Clapton. He makes it look effortless.

Maybe I'm missing the point. Are you just saying, look how wonderful God is, he can do all these different things, or everything God does is good in some way?

If it's the first, I would say that it being effortless sort of negates the "Wow" factor as far as repetition goes. He gets one huge Wow for being so clever, but doing more and more things doesn't get more Wows. Now if he got tired yet still managed to make more things, yes that's a Wow every time.

If it's for doing good things though, I don't think deliberately making flawed things that get fixed is necessarily good. Lots of bad things can happen in the as yet unfixed stage.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that historically true? Or just victor's tale.

I've been reading 2 Chronicles chapter 13 and it is descriptive of what you're saying, because it shows the great struggle between two entities -- the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom, both professing to worship the same God, kind of, more or less. Two tribes remained in the south, and ten tribes in the north. And they fought inflictiing many casualties.

 

[DNB]

I'm not being humorous or sarcastic when I ask you whether you think our old dog didn't have a spiritual nature, a strong sense of empathy and communion with the emotions of our family?

We have found that humans have evolved with built-in moral tendencies ─ the obvious one is child nurture and protection, a common tendency in nature; and more (but not completely) exclusively, and appropriate to the evolutionary advantages of living in groups and working cooperatively, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. To these we can add an evolved conscience and an evolved capacity for empathy. (I described one of the experiments on which this is based >here<.)

And for our spiritual nature, we also have an evolved reaction to the unexpected and the unknown, in very many cases to instantly devise a narrative hypothesis in our head to explain it, which may or not be supported or refuted by further evidence. You hear an unexpected noise by day, and think it might be a (say) helicopter, or by night, and think it might be a (say) stray cat. So way back when your very distant ancestors saw the phenomenon of lightning, heard the consequent thunder, they required an explanation, and provided it in the form of an imagined purposeful agent.

Or back in my student days when I drove a taxi at times, when a piece of timely good fortune gave me a good fare on a slow night, I found myself murmuring 'Thanks, TG!' and then, having noticed that this is what I'd done, realized that TG stood for Taxi God. In other words, I'd gratefully attributed good luck to (once again) an agent. This fits in with the line attributed to DG Rossetti, 'The worst time for an atheist is when he feels thankful and has no one to thank.' In other words, I think we've evolved to attribute agency to the unknown, good or bad, because we're built to need an explanation.

But then, my own position considering these things (after being raised a Pisco, more as a matter of good manners) has itself evolved over time. I think "objective reality" (here "reality" for short) means "the world external to me, which I know about through my senses"; that "truth" is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with reality; and that a fact is an accurate statement about reality.

The problem is that the only way gods and other supernatural beings are known to exist is as ideas / concepts / things imagined in individual brains. Thus not only have there been countless different gods throughout human history with countless different attributes, but they're not compatible ─ they contradict the idea that there's a supernatural realm that humans in some unexplained way have access to. Instead they're cultural artifacts. Thus there are no photos, videos, interviews with God, just ideas; and thus the Abrahamic God is described only in terms of imaginary attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfection, being eternal, being infinite. There's no description of God with objective existence such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

And the world behaves exactly as if God / gods / supernatural beings were only ideas, concepts, cultural artifacts. God doesn't stop children from drowning in backyard swimming pools, doesn't prevent the massacres at schools, doesn't do or say anything. People ─ our fellow humans ─ do all the saying and all the doing (if any).

I suspect that the benefit of belief in a god is tribal, part of the all-important tribal identity to which loyalty is owed and cooperation is made possible. Other parts of that identity are having in common language, customs, folk histories, just-so stories, and an imagined tribal protector ─ which is how Yahweh started out, one of the gods the Canaanite pantheon, apparently then with a consort, Asherah, as was customary.

I'm sorry blu, but you are describing nothing more than the sentiments of a 10 year old child - one who requires placebos in order to function somewhat competently in society, or who embraces fallacies as truth despite the influx of undermining evidence. Mature men (over 18 - 20), do not indulge in ludicrous notions or direct their lives around principles that are demonstrably refuted. Except for some fringe radical groups.

Some of the leading theologians that have ever lived were absolutely brilliant and extremely sound of mind. Philosophizing and demonstrating the virtue of a holy life, the hypocrisy of wickedness, the cowardice of lying, the strength and character of sacrifice, the profundity of abstinence etc... Theses are not imaginary ideals - show me a thief or liar, and I'll show you an insecure man - one who doesn't even trust himself. Show me a promiscuous person, and I'll show you a crass and vulgar person, or a bimbo.

These ideals are real, and are demonstrably so. Man does not make up entities in his head, so that his life may be better than without them. Countless martyrs have gone to flames for their faith, have been stoned to death, tortured or imprisoned, persecuted and confiscated of their possessions, etc... Do these sound like feeble-minded, conflicted or unsound men to you, men who can't face the truth? Why would they suffer for their faith, if a simple recantation or renunciation would spare them the impending agony. These are not men who make up fallacies in order to escape the hardships of life.

 

[DNB]

No. Millions of atheists (probably billions, China and elsewhere) do not need any such entity.
Sure, we are debating the issue. Debate always has two sides.
You need to provide your evidence. Many in science think that it is possible.

Why do you call it 'spriritual'. Atheists and even some religions do not believe in existence of soul. 'Anatta' in Buddhism, 'Maya' in my type of strict Advaita Hinduism.
There are unanswered questions and the debate is for the answer of those questions. Why should we start with a presumption?
Should anxioms be believed? Buddha said 'do not' - "nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)" (Kesamutti Sutta).
There is no destruction ever, only there is a change in the form of things.

Spiritual means transcending the secular, not whether one has a soul or not.
Love, hate, compassion, apathy, altruism, cruelty, hedonism, megalomania, etc.. are spiritual attributes.
Every human has them, for better or for worse. And, it requires a spiritual source in order for a creature to have such a dimension to their constitution - the material realm did not produce this disposition in man.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does it matter? If it's not true, then the command and the justification are ignored. If it is true then the command is justified. Either way the story has a lesson.

It does matter. Was it the only way God could resolve the problem? Kill the men, enslave women and children and usurp their properties? Force them to worship just him? We hear in Islamic history as to how deceiving every Jewish tribe of Arabia was, and Muslims were always so righteous! Should one believe that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Love, hate, compassion, apathy, altruism, cruelty, hedonism, megalomania, etc.. are spiritual attributes.
And, it requires a spiritual source in order for a creature to have such a dimension to their constitution - the material realm did not produce this disposition in man.

Whatever happens is in the material realm - even the attributes that you mention. Is there any other realm? What evidence you have for that?

 

[dybmh]

That's dubious (ask the citizens of Dresden), but even if you are correct, it's just a bad example on my part. The fact remains that destruction can be good and construction bad. It depends what you construct or destroy.

Yes.

Which of Picasso's work was flawed and how was it repaired? I mean I don't see how that's an example. I suppose that in human terms doing more is better than doing less, but only if the things are all good. They say that Hitler made the trains run on time, and had the Volkswagen "bug" made. Both good things I guess, but the holocaust kind of cancelled that out. I mean, we can't just add up things regardless of what they are.

It's not that Picaso's work was flawed. It's that his work spanned across two totally opposing genres. He could do both realism and abstract. That's much better than an artist who can only do one or the other.

Maybe I'm missing the point. Are you just saying, look how wonderful God is, he can do all these different things, or everything God does is good in some way?

What I'm saying is, creating both a realm of perfection and a realm of imperfection+remedy is better than only 1 realm of perfection. It answers the question: Why didn't God create a perfect world from the very beginning?

If it's the first, I would say that it being effortless sort of negates the "Wow" factor as far as repetition goes. He gets one huge Wow for being so clever, but doing more and more things doesn't get more Wows. Now if he got tired yet still managed to make more things, yes that's a Wow every time.

OK. I don't see it that way. But I understand what you're saying.

If it's for doing good things though, I don't think deliberately making flawed things that get fixed is necessarily good. Lots of bad things can happen in the as yet unfixed stage.

I agree, but the trend seems to be in the positive. So, it seems to me that if the plan was benevolent, it's working.

 

[dybmh]

It does matter. Was it the only way God could resolve the problem? Kill the men, enslave women and children and usurp their properties? Force them to worship just him?

This is how I understand it. Yes, God could have snapped its fingers and magically changed reality eliminating the detestable nations. But, that doesn't really discourage the Jewish people from adopting these detestable practices. Knowing that adopting these things results in being conquered and your family going into slavery is a rather hefty negative incentive. A person might be able to ignore threats to themself, but a threat to their family is the strongest motivator that exists. So, like I said, it doesn't matter if the story is true. The lesson remains either way.

We hear in Islamic history as to how deceiving every Jewish tribe of Arabia was, and Muslims were always so righteous! Should one believe that?

I have no idea. I wasn't there. I have no clue whether it's true or not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, God could have snapped its fingers and magically changed reality eliminating the detestable nations.

Why eliminate? Just change their mentality. Could this God, who created the whole universe by snapping his fingers, not do that?
Detestable? Why? They were all his creations.