Why does God care?
Offline I haven't posted for a long time. I lost interest in the argument months ago, however Fark isn't providing the distraction from work that it once did so I'm looking for an interesting discussion.
I'm not going to try to disprove the existence of God here, in fact most of the time I find that in all honesty I half-believe there is a God in some form. (Standard disclaimer: The opinion presented in the previous statement is that of myself alone and does not represent the views of atheists in general. If any attempt is made to use this as 'evidence' that atheists secretly do believe I'll be very upset, most probably due to real atheists coming around to break my legs. (Secondary disclaimer: For the fundamentalists, that last part was a joke and not intended to be taken literally. Atheists are not like that (please don't hurt me)))
Now to the point.
A significant part of the major religions (at least on paper) is that God wants us to be excellent to each other (Bill and Ted said it much better than any quote attributed to God or his spokespeople). That part makes sense. God cares how we treat each other. Even the punishment (eternal damnation) although severely disproportionate to the crime makes some sense. If you can't play nice with each other then you are sent to your room for eternity while the good kids get to keep playing together.
The part that makes no sense is the stuff the believers seem to obsess over. So here are my questions.
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him? He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement? Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem. I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.
Why does God care about attendance at church/mosque etc? Again, will he sit in a dark room listening to "My Chemical Romance" cutting himself if he doesn't get attention? Also wouldn't that church time be better spent in community service? Why doesn't Christianity tell its followers to spend their Sunday mornings helping others rather than wasting it in Church?
Why does God care about homosexuality? I know this doesn't apply to all believers but this is the one that makes the least sense to me. How does two men having sex or having their relationship formally recognised through marriage hurt anyone? How does it hurt God?
Why does God care so much about sex anyway? Sure you can get hurt or hurt other's being irresponsible or selfish but that's true of everything in life. He created sex and made it central to life (biologically) why does he have so many issues with it?
These (and others - feel free to add them, anyone) actually contradict with the part that make sense. The part that makes sense is about peace and love. Many of these other things create conflict and hate.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Eloise wrote:Quote:How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?
*POke*
This problem is solved simply if the human being is not singular.
So there's some upper limit on how many people's behaviour God can predict?
No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self' the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.
Eloise wrote:Quote:If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?
Why assume that is not already the case?
It is demonstrably not the case, unless you want to make the case that human misery is really joy.
I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self' the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.
Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.
I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.
But God could have designed things such that we would be unable to experience misery in any context.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self' the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.
Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.
I think... and I could be wrong on this, and if so, Eloise, please do correct and enlighten me, but I think what Eloise might be saying there is:
The issue of 'free will' in the face of an omnipotent Creator is not problematic if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all, but merely facets of a 'universal will' that our limited perspectives are unable to comprehend in its entirety at once. ie; as our atoms are merely motes in the physical universe, so our consciousnesses might be merely individual cells of a greater consciousness, with our conflicting goals and decisions being expressions of the internally-conflicting impulses and thoughts any consciousness has. Thus, taken in aggregate, the complete picture of neural activity across the planet might represent one planetary will... or the complete picture of consciousness across the entire cosmos might represent one singular, indubitably slow-functioning, universal will.
If that's the case, on either scale, such a planetary (or universal) consciousness might well be thought of as 'God'.
At least, that what I think she might be saying. I could be wrong.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Me too BMcD .... Reading minds ! We are ONE !
- Login to post comments
Offline Tilberian wrote:Eloise wrote:No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self' the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.
Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.
I think... and I could be wrong on this, and if so, Eloise, please do correct and enlighten me, but I think what Eloise might be saying there is:
The issue of 'free will' in the face of an omnipotent Creator is not problematic if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all, but merely facets of a 'universal will' that our limited perspectives are unable to comprehend in its entirety at once. ie; as our atoms are merely motes in the physical universe, so our consciousnesses might be merely individual cells of a greater consciousness, with our conflicting goals and decisions being expressions of the internally-conflicting impulses and thoughts any consciousness has. Thus, taken in aggregate, the complete picture of neural activity across the planet might represent one planetary will... or the complete picture of consciousness across the entire cosmos might represent one singular, indubitably slow-functioning, universal will.
If that's the case, on either scale, such a planetary (or universal) consciousness might well be thought of as 'God'.
At least, that what I think she might be saying. I could be wrong.
Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.
What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self' the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.
Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual?
It's probably not helpful to phrase it that way, No. By saying 'defined at' I am attempting to steer away from implying a mere association.
If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.
This is implied by the idea of the soul being a discrete object which would distinguish it none from the definition of self that gives us the original problem of free will vs omnipotence. As opposed to that what I am implying is something more along the lines of a Banach-Tarski paradox - you can slice up this soul and rotate and translate the components (the self would satisfy the definition of a component) then reconstruct it to define a much larger or smaller soul.
Eloise wrote:I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.
But God could have designed things such that we would be unable to experience misery in any context.
I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time"
.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Wow Eloise, that is poetry of the "ONENESS" ..... feels good 
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.
What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.
OK, so all souls are really one big soul that creates smaller reflections of itself that have separate identity.
Is God the big soul? Or is he apart from it?
In what way does this solve the problem than an omnipotent God would know every past, present and future action of any soul, big or small?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time"
You are limiting God by suggesting that he couldn't achieve freedom and existence without preventing evil.
"Selective benevolence"? I'd say your view of God is a long way off the Christian mainstream.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time"
You are limiting God by suggesting that he couldn't achieve freedom and existence without preventing evil.
This is the same answer you gave last time we had this discussion, and to reiterate my response, this is not a limit placed on God it's an axiomatic statement, arbitrary removal of some part of everything = arbitrary removal of some part of everything. I haven't said God cannot choose arbitrarily what to create or not create only that it would be arbitrary in, our terms now, to exclude evil considering that we know it is possible to create evil. And again, as I said last time, it is entirely possible that God has created you in your perfect existence in the absence of evil and that this life and existence is a projection of your own mental creation (a live play for example) being examined by you from the safety and security of that world.
"Selective benevolence"? I'd say your view of God is a long way off the Christian mainstream.
I am a long long way from mainstream religion of any sort.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.
What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.
OK, so all souls are really one big soul that creates smaller reflections of itself that have separate identity.
well paraphrased, Tilberian, I see no glaring misunderstandings in this statement.
Is God the big soul? Or is he apart from it?
This is where misunderstanding begins to creep in. It is more imperative that we formalise some model of our own existence under this premise, than God's. How can we even begin to suggest what God is or isn't when we so clearly lack a proper concept of what we are. The likeness of God and man is core theology across the board and the point I'm implying is that self (see post #26) a component slice equipped with isomorphisms up to universality equally defines God and Man. It's not worth considering the difference between God and man without first comprehending that the translation rotation steps which define objects relative to man also define God relative to man. Or in other words, there is actually no thing that is apart from or not the big soul, a little soul is a complete reconstruction of the big soul.
In what way does this solve the problem than an omnipotent God would know every past, present and future action of any soul, big or small?
This is the main question so getting straight to it the shortest answer is that we have already reduced the concept of past-present-future to basically an application of isometrics so they are constructions relative to an event, for God to know these constructions is merely for God to know what frameworks are available to us in which to perceive an event, this has no affect on volition.
More in depth, God can thus know every past present and future action, in fact he must know, because they all happen and they all exist equally, and this does not affect the volition of the entity because the volition exists within the perception of the entity. This perception actually has no separation from the event, that is, a perception is as much as a selection between equally real events. So you may say then that God then must know which perception the soul will select, which is also true, he must know, the selection and the event are equally defined and the event and the soul are equally defined. Therefore in order to know the soul God must necessarily know the selection that defines it. But this does not affect volition either because each "little" soul is a reconstruction of the "big" soul, that is, God knowing the selection that the little soul makes is precisely equal to knowing all perceivably real states at once and no different to giving the little soul absolute free will within those states.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline volition: the power of choosing or determining. Go Alan Watts, I meant Eloise. "She's so heavy", I meant cool ..... (((( Beatles song !
Asking what is god is asking what am I ?
- Login to post comments
Offline I just caught this google add here at RRS
http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CJ7-0Krq0pMCFScuagodHhZijA
Pantheism as "Sexed up Atheism" Starts,
Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.
So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.
Continues .....
- Login to post comments
Offline Omniscience demands predeterminism... (one can not be said to KNOW a thing in advance if that thing is subject to random change)
Thus, in the face of omniscience, free will is impossible
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
- Login to post comments
Offline Omniscience demands predeterminism... (one can not be said to KNOW a thing in advance if that thing is subject to random change)
Thus, in the face of omniscience, free will is impossible
LC >;-}>
Several million christians would argue with you,although not well enough to convince you.Apparently free will can exist with god,though I'm yet to be convinced. Trying to show them that never ends well,just look at any one of the many free will threads to have existed here.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
- Login to post comments
I seem to have seriously damaged the quote structure. Hopefully it all makes sense still
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Nice to see you here again , ParanoidAgnostic
Why does God care?
Well , the short answer is You care , and what is you ? God of course , what else can anything be .... I am god as you, too >>>>
<<<<
Atheism Books.
Partial answers.. no more time:
Supreme being can have desires, it is for everything that is sentient.
..both of these sentences are mere assertions.. assumptions. I can prove mine no more than you can prove yours.
Well.. I believe the analogy might be that of an alcoholic. Many probably don't believe they are better without being sober all the time. Does the same logic apply?
Who said he hates sex so much?
So.. you would think it is wrong for people to marry based upon the probability that they might have genetically ill children?
I don't know. He just does. I mean, I suppose I could speculate.. but, it would just be speculation.
Hmm.. maybe he wants to because he created us, therefore (1) wants some sort of freely willed connection between his creation and himself, (2) because it's good for you, and he wants what is best for his creation.
God doesn't 'need' anything.
That would be sort of a strange thought.. maybe I should think on it more.
Here will be a bit of special pleading.
I thought we were under the presumption that when I said "faith," I meant "faith in God"--not merely "faith." I would venture to say that "faith in God," whatever that might mean, does not have negative effects.
As for your "evidence" that some people around here are doing fine.. see above for an example on this issue. Subjective understanding of "wellness" does not always correlate with an objective one.
Not what I believe.
I would venture to say that God doesn't get "angry" about you or anyone not going to church.. depends on what activity you have replaced it with. If you kick little children from 9-12p, he might be a little angry about that.... maybe.
If church neither helps you nor helps others, then yes.. I don't think there is an "obligation" to go.
There is a general presumption (amongst christendom) that it does, in some way.
Personally, I think it's all a matter of what congregation you're a part of. Maybe I'll have to give some more thought to that.
Why can't I? I was positing one possible explanation for God's concern about it. In the same way that I would be concerned about my siblings alcoholism whether he realized it was bad for him or not.. so God might too be concerned about homosexuality whether we realize it is bad for us or not.
I personally don't go either way on it. I'm not a homosexual, and I have heard arguments from either side as to why it is something God cares about and why it is "not."
It merely suggested that there are certain things that people have "moral problems" with, even though there is no "hurt" beyond a general, unsettling, feeling about the idea.
You say that the parents have a high probability of hurting their children because of genetic problems. I would contend that people do not "hurt" their children by passing along genetic information.
Two parents who procreate, even with 100% certainty that a child will have a certain genetic birth defect, do not hurt the child, they merely are creating a child that has a birth defect... that is who the baby is.
They are not punching the baby.. they are passing along their genetic information as part of the process of creating it.
I vote Fanas gets the "Inbreeding is OK" tag ^_^
edit; and no i dont know why the post is wonky
What Would Kharn Do?
Yea, but nobody who is perfect can't have desires which influence others.
lol, this made me laugh. I guess I am addicted to being atheist. You see being alcoholic is really bad. And being atheist is much better. I am atheist, and yet i did not commit a murder, i am moral member of society. I feel good. I am no different than any other human, except for religion. Some people need religion to feel and be good, some don't. I don't need that, so god does not need to worry. So if god wants for me to be better, he would really want me being atheist. He should wan't me to worship him only if he's not perfect.
Because according to religion, sex is sinful.
It's not wrong for them to marry, it's wrong for them to have children.
Tell me: if you knew that if (you/your wife) conceived, your child would have a genetical mutation which would make him paralized for the rest of his life. Would you conceive? We yet can't predict it 100% sure, but if there was at least 1% probability for that i wouldn't dare to doom my children for suffering.
I am exactly opposite.
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
No, it is illogical to posit an omnipotent being that has desires. If there is anything more than zero time between the forming of a desire in God's mind and the realization of that desire, then God is limited in his ability to do things and not omnipotent. But if the realization of God's desire really takes zero time, then the desire cannot be said to have happened in the sense that we use the word at all. It would have to be as if all God's desires and their realizations occurred simultaneously, which means God never really had a desire at all.
Alcoholics are demonstrably worse off when they are drinking. The same thing cannot be said for atheists. Before you try to arrogantly claim that we are suffering from some deficiency of which we are unaware, I suggest you point directly to that deficiency and tell us in clear terms what it is.
Actually, speculation is ALL you have on all your assertions about God, his nature and his desires. If you disagree with me, please present the evidence that would back up your claims.
How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?
ORLY? If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?
Would you consider deliberately flying a planeload of commuters into a building a "negative effect"?
You just sawed off the branch you are sitting on, my friend. I can just as easily say that theists are deluded when they think that their faith makes them happy. But I can also point to the relative rates of murder, poverty, teen pregnancy, infant mortality and a number of other social ills that are more prevalent as a society becomes more religious and make a scientific claim that religion is bad for society and the people in it.
On what evidence? The Bible says that if you displease God he will kill you. Are you a greater authority on God than the writers of the Bible?
My, you have a lot of detailed information on what God likes and dislikes. Has he told you all this directly?
I think you better. Because going to church has to be either a) optional or b) required. The confusion on this point speaks rather poorly of the omnipotent being who is apparently unable to carry out an act of communication even as well as your local TV station.
Again, a misery-inducing point of confusion that an omnibenevolent God would be obligated to clear up.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
To Tilberian:Quote:
First off, I will respond to everyone of your responses mentioned (or presuming) an omnipotent being in this way:
You can't say an omnipotent being "can't" do something. Half your arguments are therefore thrown out the window.
If omnipotent God wants to do something -> done. This would include 'wanting' to wait.
And if anything seems like it would be illogical to complete, well then, an omnipotent God could do the illogical.
According to my understanding, an all-powerful has no limits.. which means, well, he has no limits.
There, done.
True. I rescind my argument on that point.
True, you can, never said you couldn't.
Your claim would be ill supported one, but okay.
Optional then.
Heh, no, but for the sake of argument I felt it might be easier if I'm a little made statements that were unqualified. I suppose I could go back into qualifying mode.. if it helps, just imagine that "it's possible" is tacked onto the beginning of every assertion regarding God.
True. Conceded. Well.. partially. But I don't feel like getting into a nit-picky argument.. all the prior stuff will probably be enough for now.
Because he wants to wait and let you choose it for yourself.
Did you just suggest the bible is evidence?
Umm.. okay.. well, anyways, what you have stated is one interpretation of the Bible.
Heh.. calm down. I realize it will be futile to try and judge that sort of thing. But, the original thread asked, so I created a system of conditional statements that would make sense of the whole thing.
IF X then Y.
So if atheist worst for people, and God wants best for people, then God wants non-atheist for people.
That answered the original question.
No it's not.
No. But the reason for me not doing it would not be because it was wrong.
Dammit, Went to bed and missed the debate.
Rhad. I can't disagree with anything in your last few posts. I guess I was hoping to pick a fight with a slightly less reasonable believer.
Where did they all go anyway?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I agree with everything you just wrote. If an omnipotent God exists, then everything must be EXACTLY as he wants it to be. Which means God is 100% solely and perfectly responsible for every single evil thing and every single bit of suffering and injustice that has ever occurred in the universe.
Even if I grant that free will is possible in the presence of an omnipotent God (and I don't, since that is illogical) everything that has happened because of free will is still perfectly and totally God's fault. Why? Because an omnipotent God makes all the rules. If free will is necessary for something or other, that is only because God wants it to be that way.
And that means God is evil. Evil to an extent that is quite literally impossible to imagine. What we have here is a being that could have made things any way he wanted, but instead chose to create and commit every kind of evil there is as surely as if it happened by his own hand.
You will be tempted at this point to say that God can just decide that he's not evil and make it so. This is God that violates logic and is therefore impossible for us to comprehend in any meaningful sense. Time to pack up the tent and go home, religion, you can serve no useful purpose.
Then why come in here saying that atheists might only think they are happy when they really aren't? What is your point, if you acknowledge that that could go for theists as well?
Not really. Read Letter to a Christian Nation.
I see. So what we are doing here is not so much discussing God as a real entity but God as a theoretical construct that we are allowed to believe in if he holds together without logical holes. In other words, a work of speculative fiction.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Because he is evil. OK, I get that.
No, I just decided to pre-emptively cut off that one particular predictable theist response.
There's no interpretation involved. The OT is full of examples of God killing people for not doing what he says.
Sorry, but that made no sense at all.
I didn't write any of that stuff.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I 'unno... but thanks for the kind words. It's tough to get them around here sometimes.
*POke*
This problem is solved simply if the human being is not singular.
Why assume that is not already the case?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I agree with your position PA, So lets assume that since "he" shouldn't care, then he mustn't care. But if God doesn't care does that necessarily mean that we should not care? No.
One could say it means we are not, then, compelled to care by God's emotions or probable reaction, and one could say it means we are in no way 'required' to care as of some point of contention in God's decree. But it cannot negate that there may be reasons why we could choose to believe in God and care in regards to our making of that choice.
Suppose it perhaps that there exists a single basic law or mechanism by which life operates. Suppose it further that belief in God is defined by some specialised use of this same mechanism. Then God need not care that humankind apply the 'special procedure' only humans ultimately care whether they get among the benefits of applying the "god belief" procedure, God, need not, yet it would still be fair and in humanity's interest for him to promote said procedure to us, right? This promotional campaign might seem to imply that God cares if you believe in him, then, but that wouldn't be the point, the point would be believing in him and what doing so mattered to humanity.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
So god belief is for the benefit of the humans who believe?
Makes sense...Humans invented him after all.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So there's some upper limit on how many people's behaviour God can predict?
Why assume that is not already the case?
It is demonstrably not the case, unless you want to make the case that human misery is really joy.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown