Is it up to us to believe in God?

[jbg]

It is very astonishing that some very rational people out there are still thinking believing in God is optional...

*snip*

What do you think?...

I believe in G-d. I think G-d would be very offended by forced belief. My $0.02.

[August1991]

Perpetual universe? Supreme being? Same difference.

So you're saying an inanimate object (which, essentially, is what the universe is), the "behaviour" of which is subject to various restrictions is the same as an animate, concious, sentient, omnipotent and omniscient entity that exists completely outside the bounds of what we know as reality?

Exactly.

Black Dog, you call this the "Universe" and other people call it "God".

Look, if you were arguing that God is merely a human term to describe the mysteries of the universe and the infinite possibilities it contains (including the possibility of this universe being one among an infinite number)-IOW, shorthand for "all the shit we can't really fathom with our puny minds"- fine. But that's not what most people, including the O.P, are talking about.

Exactly.

So what is the difference between your use of the word "Universe" and Adel's use of the word "God"?

The difference is how someone like Adel believes the "Universe" (God) has sent us "messages" about how the Universe (God) operates. Black Dog, I think you and I would call discovering these messages the "scientific method".

Hence my query to Adel: Adel, how do you know that Mohammed (or Jesus or Reverend Moon) is not just a charlatan?

Adel, you seem to believe that if a Prophet doesn't take money - the Prophet is genuine. Is that a good criteria? Someone who knows the "truth" will likely benefit from this knowledge, no? BTW, Mohammed was a good trader.

----

The Universe (God) exists. I have no problem with that, or even with the choice of words.

My problem is with a person's claim that he/she has spoken to God (the Universe) and has discovered something new about existence.

When God comes to Earth, that's not religion. That's politics.

[Figleaf]

Slavery is evil because it takes the brains and wills of many people and makes them subservient to one.

That makes sense.

No, it only feels like it makes sense. WHY is it wrong for the many to serve the one?

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

Can you please run that one by me again?

Sure, I did't really have time to explain too much.

the universe is merely a 'being', a thing.

Merely an object, with boundaries, (separating it from the infinite surroundings of 'that which does not be') thus giving it the parameters needed for it to qualify as 'existing'. However, that does not make it the sole thing that 'does be'. It may be one of several, or even an infinite amount. If there is infinity, then all things should happen. (for example, what are the odds of you rolling a 1 on a six sided die on the first roll? 0.167... what are the odds of rolling a million 1s on the first roll of a million dice? astronomical...but, what are the chances of rolling a million ones of the first roll of a million dice if you are given an infinite number of chances? 100%)

This means, August1991, that all possibilities will come to pass. A singularity may blossom (or explode) into a universe and appear unique to us, but only because we are inside of it.

(on a wacky sidenote)...

Above all the things in nature humans have mastered, the most valuable and the most inexorable has eluded us...time.

Theloniusmonk, I'll take your word for it.

[Charles Anthony]

You say religion is like slavery and everybody is a slave if they have a job.

If thats how you choose to see it *shrug*

Yes, that is how I choose to see it. If I am mistaken, correct me.

No, it only feels like it makes sense. WHY is it wrong for the many to serve the one?

I am taking it as implying that people are coerced

Therefore, yes, equating coercion to evil feels good to me as I would expect justifying coercion feels good to evil people.

[Melanie_]

Look at what religion says about women…

- “Who ever does good deeds – man or women – will be rewarded…” no difference

- A prophet was asked “Who is the one person with whom I must behave best?” The prophet said “Your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your you mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?”. The prophet said “then your father.” Religion asks people to take care of their mothers 3 times than their fathers. This is of-course you are dealing with your fathers very very well…

- “All people – men and women- are equals as a comb’s teeth… ”

There are a lot spread in the holy books

Maybe this is some of the meanings of one verse in one of the creator’s holy books. He said “Only scientists are those who fear God most….”

Again, which specific holy books are you talking about/quoting from?

For accidents that happen in this world, they happen on purpose even if we do not know why. It might appear as unfair for us, but as long as we do not see the whole picture we are not in a good position to judge

How convenient. So why are you asking us to think in the first place?

I imagine a person is being planned to be killed and he is a good person. His parents and his family need him badly. For these reasons or others, God does not want him being killed. Then He interferes, which is good for all people including the one who planned to kill that persons…

So are you saying that good people are never killed? I suspect many good people, whose families needed them badly, have still been slaughtered around the world. Of course, you've stipulated "for these reasons or others", which is an easy way out of any argument.

If there is sick person that doctors said no known medicine is there for him. And he or any one - his mother for example – asked the God to cure him and God accepted her prayer, he would interfere and cure him.

OK, so lets get this straight. Your basic premise is that God is infinitely wise, and nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, creates cancer. He arbitrarily decides who gets cancer, and then to cure some and not others, based on whether or not someone has asked him to; the ultimate power trip. But wait, others ask to be cured and are not, and others don't ask, and are cured.

It sounds like your God is all powerful yet only uses that power when it suits him, for reasons unknown, and we are all at his mercy. Any free choice we make is subject to his will, and we will be judged and punished if we don't do what he wants. I don't like your God very much at all.

[Adel]

Look at what religion says about women…

- “Who ever does good deeds – man or women – will be rewarded…” no difference

- A prophet was asked “Who is the one person with whom I must behave best?” The prophet said “Your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your you mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?”. The prophet said “then your father.” Religion asks people to take care of their mothers 3 times than their fathers. This is of-course you are dealing with your fathers very very well…

- “All people – men and women- are equals as a comb’s teeth… ”

There are a lot spread in the holy books

Maybe this is some of the meanings of one verse in one of the creator’s holy books. He said “Only scientists are those who fear God most….”

Again, which specific holy books are you talking about/quoting from?

For accidents that happen in this world, they happen on purpose even if we do not know why. It might appear as unfair for us, but as long as we do not see the whole picture we are not in a good position to judge

How convenient. So why are you asking us to think in the first place?

I imagine a person is being planned to be killed and he is a good person. His parents and his family need him badly. For these reasons or others, God does not want him being killed. Then He interferes, which is good for all people including the one who planned to kill that persons…

So are you saying that good people are never killed? I suspect many good people, whose families needed them badly, have still been slaughtered around the world. Of course, you've stipulated "for these reasons or others", which is an easy way out of any argument.

If there is sick person that doctors said no known medicine is there for him. And he or any one - his mother for example – asked the God to cure him and God accepted her prayer, he would interfere and cure him.

OK, so lets get this straight. Your basic premise is that God is infinitely wise, and nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, creates cancer. He arbitrarily decides who gets cancer, and then to cure some and not others, based on whether or not someone has asked him to; the ultimate power trip. But wait, others ask to be cured and are not, and others don't ask, and are cured.

It sounds like your God is all powerful yet only uses that power when it suits him, for reasons unknown, and we are all at his mercy. Any free choice we make is subject to his will, and we will be judged and punished if we don't do what he wants. I don't like your God very much at all.

It is because you do not know Him that you do not like Him…

I might have not been able to explain correctly… I understand you…

However, before jumping and saying you do not like Him you should have asked yourself if He does like your actions…

Everyday He gives it to you is a blessing for which you should thank Him, but you never do…

He created you and you worship something or someone else (maybe yourself) … He gives you many things every second and you do not seem grateful… He keeps the sun shining, the mother Earth generous and has never heard ‘Thanks God’ …

Although it is not a good analogy, if you have a son and you take care of him very well… You protect him but he always hurt himself… you give him guides to deal with the world – you know well - around him, but he never listens…you do whatever you can to him but he never thanks you…… probably you will not like his actions that well…

[Melanie_]

However, before jumping and saying you do not like Him you should have asked yourself if He does like your actions…

Everyday He gives it to you is a blessing for which you should thank Him, but you never do…

He created you and you worship something or someone else (maybe yourself) … He gives you many things every second and you do not seem grateful… He keeps the sun shining, the mother Earth generous and has never heard ‘Thanks God’ …

Ahh, guilt. The basis of your religion. I don't especially care if he likes my actions, since I think he is just a figment of your imagination. But if he exists, I don't think he really needs validation or gratitude from me. He's a big boy, he'll get over it if I don't say thank you.

[Figleaf]

Charles:

I am taking it as implying that people are coerced Therefore, yes, equating coercion to evil feels good to me as I would expect justifying coercion feels good to evil people.

So it feels good, but can you make a fundamental argument that logically, rather than by reference to an underlying assumption, supports that feeling?

[Frankie]

However, before jumping and saying you do not like Him you should have asked yourself if He does like your actions…

Everyday He gives it to you is a blessing for which you should thank Him, but you never do…

He created you and you worship something or someone else (maybe yourself) … He gives you many things every second and you do not seem grateful… He keeps the sun shining, the mother Earth generous and has never heard ‘Thanks God’ …

Ahh, guilt. The basis of your religion. I don't especially care if he likes my actions, since I think he is just a figment of your imagination. But if he exists, I don't think he really needs validation or gratitude from me. He's a big boy, he'll get over it if I don't say thank you.

The underlying basis of our entire existance is because God wanted a relationship. He created angels, but from creation they were holy, and don't have choice of not having a relationship with God. They're pretty much robots. He created us with choice to do what he asks us, which according to him is best, and we have a choice to not do what he asks us. That makes our relationship with him worth so much, because if we can follow everything he tells us on this earth, which is ridiculously full of temptation and the actual doubt of his existance, then he would want to spend the rest of eternity with us. When you said, "He'll get over it", it makes it seem like he doesn't care about us. But to him we're a huge deal of his creation.

But....this is only if he exist.

[willy]

I don't think he really needs validation or gratitude from me. He's a big boy, he'll get over it if I don't say thank you.

I totally agree God does not need our gratitude. God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and complete.

But consider this....

Maybe God has communicated with us. Given some advise about how we are made and what our internal struggles may entail. Being open minded to this reality is a great expedition. There is nothing to lose to exploring an alternate view when you start from a place of non belief.

Hope, faith, love and grace are all topics worth exploring. The alternative is very boring. Altruism for its own sake is not that great of a motivation and without altruism we would have an even more desprit world than we do right now.

The Church is full of hypocrite's because it is full of people. This fits the Christian metaphysical reality of a fallen world.

Saturday night thoughts after a Canucks win. Go Canucks.

[Charles Anthony]

I am taking it as implying that people are coerced Therefore, yes, equating coercion to evil feels good to me as I would expect justifying coercion feels good to evil people.

So it feels good, but can you make a fundamental argument that logically, rather than by reference to an underlying assumption, supports that feeling?

Good call. I am generally what I like to call a religious anarchist -- I resort to passionate defenses of freedom -- but admittedly, it is rarely convincing within a debate.

Here is the logic and it is quite simple:

The inherent nature of man is that it can not survive by instinct alone -- unlike other animals. Man survives by freewill and he does so on an individual basis.

Thus, men need the faculty to learn their environment and to cultivate the creative ability to adapt to the environment before being able to survive in it. Such abilities are not enough because they need to be fueled by freewill -- people can not be forced to learn.

Since, a person can only learn as an individual it is logical that an individual's freewill is defended as a natural right for its existence. Couple that the need to cooperate (one person can rarely provide for oneself alone) to manage finite resources, trampling on freewill can conceivably (with a bit of modern imagination) lead to the destruction of the human species.

Now, I can not resist spicing things up a bit.

I genuinely believe that people who rationalize coercion (naturally, outside of self-defense) have chosen Satan/Evil as their religion as those who defend the non-aggression axiom have chosen God/Universe as theirs.

[before anybody gets too riled up, I have just presented an inversion of a definition. You can only get riled up if you ultimately agree with my sentiment but just do not want to hear it.]

[Melanie_]

The underlying basis of our entire existance is because God wanted a relationship. He created angels, but from creation they were holy, and don't have choice of not having a relationship with God. They're pretty much robots. He created us with choice to do what he asks us, which according to him is best, and we have a choice to not do what he asks us. That makes our relationship with him worth so much, because if we can follow everything he tells us on this earth, which is ridiculously full of temptation and the actual doubt of his existance, then he would want to spend the rest of eternity with us. When you said, "He'll get over it", it makes it seem like he doesn't care about us. But to him we're a huge deal of his creation.

But....this is only if he exist.

It seems like a pretty mean spirited deity who would create people in order to have a relationship with them, and give them a choice - choose me and do what I want or I'll punish you for eternity. What kind of choice is that? He then sets it up so that everyone disagrees about what it is he actually wants, so no one knows with any degree of certainty that what they are doing is even going to lead them to that relationship he claims to want. The illogic of it all is stunning.

You're right, this is only if he exists. I don't believe he does, but if I'm wrong, I don't think I'd want to choose him anyway. Anyone who would punish someone for eternity for choices made in a short human lifespan, with inaccurate and conflicting information, isn't someone I'm interested in knowing.

[Figleaf]

So it feels good, but can you make a fundamental argument that logically, rather than by reference to an underlying assumption, supports that feeling?

...Here is the logic and it is quite simple:

The inherent nature of man is that it can not survive by instinct alone -- unlike other animals. Man survives by freewill and he does so on an individual basis.

Thus, men need the faculty to learn their environment and to cultivate the creative ability to adapt to the environment before being able to survive in it. Such abilities are not enough because they need to be fueled by freewill -- people can not be forced to learn.

Since, a person can only learn as an individual it is logical that an individual's freewill is defended as a natural right for its existence. Couple that the need to cooperate (one person can rarely provide for oneself alone) to manage finite resources, trampling on freewill can conceivably (with a bit of modern imagination) lead to the destruction of the human species.

Okay, rather than attacking minute linquistic tics in your statement, let me restate it in terms that are, to my mind, more rigorous than you have used (no offense), and then proceed to challenge the core logical disputes I identify.

First sentence reworked: It is observed that human survival depends on faculties other than instinct.

Second sentence: [Ambiguous or meaningless]

Third sentence: As substitute for reliance on instinct, humans learn about their environment and cultivate creative adaptibility.

Fourth sentence: The faculties of learning and creativity require the capability for/exercise of free will.

Fifth sentence: Since [free will]* is required for these faculties, it follows that [ambiguous or meaningless].

Sixth sentence: Add the observation that human survival depends also on ~cooperation, and it may be considered that ~hampering free will impairs human survivability.

Now for the critique...

First, obviously, there are two sentences which contain passages which are technically meaningless, at least without reference to an off-map system of reference which we don't have in common.

The second sentence is a non sequitur. The claim than man survives by free will might be supported by your later argument, but it is mere assertion at this juncture, and used to introduce a confusing clause that man does ?what exactly? on an undefined 'individual basis'.

The fifth sentence starts well enough, but then there is reference to the term 'natural rights' which has no meaning that I can fathom. It may be that the sentence simply says that since free will is required for required faculties, free will is required for survival. But I think you intend more than simply that, right?

Second, the contention in the fourth sentence that learning and creativity require free will is somewhat a-vague and b-needs support.

It is vague in the sense that it's not clear whether you mean they require the learner or creator to exercise free will, or simply have free will.

It needs support because it's a bald assertion -- you need at the very least to define learning since in some sense animals can learn and you've ruled them outside the realm of free will already.

Next, in the first half of the fifth sentence, you implicitly equate free will with individuality.

Finally, in the sixth sentence you appear to implicitly assume that interference with free will would impair cooperation.

Now, I'm not saying that these flaws conclusively undermine your position. They are simply the lacunae in your defense of your position.

[Charles Anthony]

FigLeaf, that was the best I could do.

[Figleaf]

FigLeaf, that was the best I could do.

Nah. It was the best you could do on short notice.

[jbg]

It seems like a pretty mean spirited deity who would create people in order to have a relationship with them, and give them a choice - choose me and do what I want or I'll punish you for eternity. What kind of choice is that? He then sets it up so that everyone disagrees about what it is he actually wants, so no one knows with any degree of certainty that what they are doing is even going to lead them to that relationship he claims to want. The illogic of it all is stunning.

You're right, this is only if he exists. I don't believe he does, but if I'm wrong, I don't think I'd want to choose him anyway. Anyone who would punish someone for eternity for choices made in a short human lifespan, with inaccurate and conflicting information, isn't someone I'm interested in knowing.

I don't think that's why G-d created man. I think that G-d must exist, since one would expect, otherwise, the elements that allow life, and the sheer variety earth has, to exist in many other places. While I am not a creationist, I do believe, to quote Dan Fogelberg that all is "Part of the Plan".

[Frankie]

The underlying basis of our entire existance is because God wanted a relationship. He created angels, but from creation they were holy, and don't have choice of not having a relationship with God. They're pretty much robots. He created us with choice to do what he asks us, which according to him is best, and we have a choice to not do what he asks us. That makes our relationship with him worth so much, because if we can follow everything he tells us on this earth, which is ridiculously full of temptation and the actual doubt of his existance, then he would want to spend the rest of eternity with us. When you said, "He'll get over it", it makes it seem like he doesn't care about us. But to him we're a huge deal of his creation.

But....this is only if he exist.

It seems like a pretty mean spirited deity who would create people in order to have a relationship with them, and give them a choice - choose me and do what I want or I'll punish you for eternity. What kind of choice is that? He then sets it up so that everyone disagrees about what it is he actually wants, so no one knows with any degree of certainty that what they are doing is even going to lead them to that relationship he claims to want. The illogic of it all is stunning.

You're right, this is only if he exists. I don't believe he does, but if I'm wrong, I don't think I'd want to choose him anyway. Anyone who would punish someone for eternity for choices made in a short human lifespan, with inaccurate and conflicting information, isn't someone I'm interested in knowing.

He didn't create us with sin or the "falleness", We were perfect at one point, but we still had free will. And I'm sure you're not opposed to free will. And the main point is that God is completely Holy, and he can't approve of sin, or be in a relationship with something sinful. And when mankind first sinned, God had to remove himself from us, to a certain degree. And of course, when someone does something wrong, they have to be punished. Don't you agree? And by removing himself, there's a absence of holiness, which results in anything opposite of what God created to be the best way and holy. But we shouldn't even have the right to exist anymore or at least not have any hope. Because when mankind first sinned, he could have either just killed them then and there, or could have left us to fend for ourselves and rot away on a sin controlled planet with no hope of returning to his presence. But he gives us a chance to follow his rules, which are the best way to live our lives, and how can you argue with that? And he didn't set up are arguments, he sent prophet after prophet to the Jews way back when, and they still sinned. Then he sent Jesus to make things clear once and for all. And he did set up a whole book about it, so the truth will never be lost. What else do you want him to do?

[Melanie_]

Actually, I don't really want him to do anything, except perhaps have a game of Yahtzee with Zeus, Odin and Osiris. But back to your argument...

No, I don't agree that punishment is the only recourse when someone has done something "wrong". Punishment doesn't teach anyone anything about appropriate behaviour, it just creates fear.

So if he can't approve of sin, why create it? And don't tell me it was to give us free will - I'm sure he could have found some other way to allow free will without creating the need to punish someone for eternity based on the actions of 70 or so years. And do you realize the sheer silliness of your statement, "he sent prophet after prophet to the Jews....then he sent Jesus to make things clear once and for all"? According to Christianity, he changed all the rules when he sent Jesus, so exactly how did that clear things up? It just created more confusion, led to more division, and caused some of the worst examples of the horrors people can commit on other people, all in his name.

[Frankie]

The Jews were the ones who caused all the confusion, they were messing up all that God asked them to do for their own greedy ways. And lived by the law instead of by faith. Jesus didn't change the rules, he fullfilled the law that God first gave to Moses. Example: God told the Jews not to work on the sabbath, so they can rest, and so employers couldn't force them to work and that sort of stuff. But they took it too far and decided that helping a poor guy on the street is working, and wanted to kill Jesus for that. It's actually really really simple, but since nobody nowadays actually reads the Bible for themselves, how can they ever understand it, or even argue against it. And the people who tell you whats in it, might not even know what they're talking about themselves, and could also make mistakes. That's why it's always good to read for yourself.

And the whole idea of hell has been debated as well. I mean, he it's not necessarily punishment. It's like if your full of Sin, God can't be with you, and hell is like a place where he has removed himself from everything there. It's a place without God. Now this has been debated too, because it doesn't make much sense for God to keep around a hell place for eternity after everything is done. It brings no Glory to God to have hell as a place of torture, nor would it have a real purpose. So some people suggest that once you die, if you don't go to heaven, you're just destroyed. You no longer exist, soul and all. Which is possible as well. But this shouldn't affect my faith because for me, the fact remains, that what he asks me to do is the best for my life, and I would want to do what he says whether there is a hell or not, because my goal is to get into heaven.

[Melanie_]

What incredible rubbish! You are blaming the Jews for trying to continue to do what god told them to do, rather than follow some hick who told them they no longer had to? I fail to see how that made anything clearer. And the sabbath is the perfect example of confusion and change - Constantine changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in the fourth century AD simply to make Christianity more palatable to the pagans. This was done purely for political gain, rather than for anything based in the religion, yet it is still upheld today as being "god's word."

Your comments on hell prove my point. Why not be clear about it, rather than let everyone try to interpret as best they can? If it is debatable, god is failing to provide us with a fair basis on which to make choices. You might say it brings no glory to god to have hell as a place of torture, but many others who purport to be Christians would disagree. Who is right? How do you know?

[Frankie]

You're missing the point, the Jews weren't continuing what he told them. Infact they were completely disobeying him, and changed what it meant. That's where the confusion is. They had that attitude with everything. And certain people knew they were doing things wrong, but no one listened to them. God had to send his son. It's simple history, and it's easier to understand if you read for yourself, because perhaps you don't like the way I explain it.

And there's a lot of things we still don't understand, and don't really need to. I'm sure God could have told us EVERYTHING. Like how every little thing works, and teach us mathimatics and science and everything right from the start, but he just decided not to. And maybe that's because none of it really matters towards our ultimate goal to be right with God again. And besides, our mordern calander was probably made after God made the laws, so it really doesn't matter which day of the week is the sabbath. It's just nice to have everyone have it on the same day, makes things easier. God just wants to make sure we rest is all and dedicate that day to him.

[Melanie_]

Don't make the assumption that I haven't read it. I have spent a good deal of my life reading it, and have found it to be contradictory and uninformative. I'll agree with you when you say it is simple history - it is a simple history of a people trying to make sense of their world with limited knowledge and a lot of superstition. The only relevance it has in today's world is to detail the mythology of a long ago time.

[Adel]

the Jews weren't continuing what he told them. Infact they were completely disobeying him, and changed what it meant..

That is true..

Actually that is the idea behind sending all that number of prophets all over the human history… The believers followed their prophet’s instructions during the course of the prophet’s life and for a short period of time after. Then lots of people would be born not seeing the prophet or hearing from him and not enthusiastically follow his instructions for a while. Lastly people will go back to their own enjoyment and change in the religion itself…

A few hundreds years after the prophet, almost main elements of the message would have been modified and God would send another prophet who will confirm his ancestor prophet message and come with some new instructions that fit the development of life…

I'm sure God could have told us EVERYTHING..

That is also true…

God sent his messengers with a message that anwers the main questions of life and some guides….

As everything based on justice, whatever anyone does will see the suitable reward….

[jbg]

The Jews were the ones who caused all the confusion, they were messing up all that God asked them to do for their own greedy ways.

I don't want to accuse you of bigotry. Suffice to say that Eve, in the Garden of Eden, was not Jewish. That started many "begats" later, with Abraham.