Some thoughts on God

[spookymooky]

I find it silly personally that people base their entire lives and everything they do off of a book.

Also, what did people do before the bible was written? did everyone go to hell, since they weren't practicing the religion as modern sects say you must?

I can understand deism however, because I guess the chance that a hgher being created the universe is just about as probable as a singularity in nothingness randomly exploding.

The bible was written after the practices and customs had already taken root.

 

[Neutrino]

Well, God is the creator. He determined what is right and wrong.

If that were true, then right and wrong would arbitrary and hence meaningless.

Just thought I'd explain this a bit further as I've found this subject to be rather interesting in the past. The idea that God's will is the foundation of morality, is known as Divine Command theory. I found it to be an interesting theory because on the surface it seems reasonable from a religious viewpoint. But if you examine it more closely it brings up some interesting questions and contradictions in the relationship between ethics and religion. As a moral theory it has been refuted by the Euthyphro dilemma, which came about from one of the works of Plato. It goes like this:

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.

Sorry, for going perhaps a bit off topic. I just liked that theory and the logical arguments that surround it. Here's more info on the theory and the problems with it if anyone's interested: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/divinecommandtheory.html

 

[Apos]

Heres another moot idea on that site: The site states that if you wanted a computer that loved you, you wouldnt just program it to say "I love you" everytime it boots up.

True, then it wouldnt love me. But, if computers could love, I could program it to feel love towards me all the time.

Right: these arguments essentially make no sense. Whether something was programed/intended to love you or just ended up that way through another process, the end result is the same: it loves you. At some point it was either programmed to choose to love you, or simply ended up that way by chance and circumstance. Whether or not someone ultimately _intended_ it to love you doesn't determine whether or not it was chosen. Choosing is a process just like anything else.

 

[She]

If god is Almighty...
Then Could he create such a huge rock, that he couldn't lift it himself?.

If god was/is Forever..
Then who created "it"?

 

[Prince of China]

Questions like the ones that She asked me freak the hell out of me.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Questions like the ones that She asked me freak the hell out of me.

like the one who asked??? your mom? gf? sister? who???

 

[Prince of China]

She .

 

[Lil' Timmy]

but WHO IS SHE???

 

[Prince of China]

****ing moron.

 

[spookymooky]

but WHO IS SHE???

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/member.php?userid=18730

 

[Lil' Timmy]

lol.. you guys.. are my jokes really that obtuse?

 

[CptStern]

lol.. you guys.. are my jokes really that obtuse?

nah, too reminiscent of "who's on first" :O

 

[qckbeam]

nah, too reminiscent of "who's on first" :O

woah, woah, slow down there. Who's on what now?

 

[CptStern]

woah, woah, slow down there. Who's on what now?

that's what I'd like to know!

 

[poseyjmac]

(assuming god exists as he is in the bible)

im interested to see a christian reply to what im about to say:

now free-will is very valuable. the god of the bible retains it well in the world, since we are able to do whatever we want. good. i like free-will.

BUT why did god make such a dire end consequence(being hell) if you don't convert? a place of horrible eternal suffering with satan and his demons?

how about this idea: why not kill off satan and the demons after the world ends, and make a place thats nowhere NEAR as good as heaven, still separated from god, but no one is suffering, kinda like another earth? that way people will still regret not going to heaven PLUS there won't be as many christians that convert to christianity based on fear. which leads them to hell anyways.

see the problem with threatening people with hell is, many people will make the decision to follow god out of fear alone. god could have eliminated this unneeded fear and future horrible suffering, by just taking my idea above. it wouldn't violate anything in the bible, it wouldn't violate free-will. now i ask you christians, why isn't this a better idea?

oops! my hand slipped and posted this quote. oh well, while its here, any christian want to take a crack at it?

 

[Neutrino]

lol.. you guys.. are my jokes really that obtuse?

What joke? I'm still wonder who this mystery girl is.

 

[spookymooky]

Are you claiming your idea is better than God's? Blasphemy!

 

[Lil' Timmy]

What joke? I'm still wonder who this mystery girl is.

.. yeah me too, i just wanted to look cool

 

[OCybrManO]

[singing] Blasphe-me! Blasphe-you! Blasphe- everybody in the room... [/singing]

 

[poseyjmac]

Are you claiming your idea is better than God's? Blasphemy!

until proven otherwise, yes :dork:

 

[Xenome]

God created the world perfect. Adam and Eve screwed up, and gg humanity.

The end.

Do you believe that?

 

[NeLi]

God is a fantasy

 

[spookymooky]

God is a fantasy

Just like your signature...Zing!

 

[ComradeBadger]

Hell is eternal life in the absence of God

Heaven is eternal life in the prescese of God

 

[NeLi]

:bonce:

I believe in the old Viking gods. It's all a matter of faith.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I believe in the old Viking gods. It's all a matter of faith.

aren't they dead yet?

 

[Gray Fox]

This is all bs, there is only one god and that is Hideo Kojima!!!!

 

[Neutrino]

Hell is eternal life in the absence of God

Heaven is eternal life in the prescese of God

By that definition I live in Hell now.

*Looks around*

Not to bad really. I kind of having a craving for a burrito, but other than that, I'm pretty satisfied overall.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Neutrino, thats the literal definition of Heaven + Hell.

However, your life on earth isn't eternal

 

[Gray Fox]

This is all bs, there is only one god and that is Hideo Kojima!!!!

Hmm, I mad this comment before I read all the other comments, i thought all of them were going to be stupid, but after reading everything I realize that I just made a fool of myself, luckly no one noticed my post.

But I read in some philosophy article that what we think in our minds is as real as this world, so in essence doesn't that make us gods, and I remeber seeing on discovery a test where by hospital patients were divided in 2 groups, to one of those people prayed every day and to the other they didn't, the people who were prayed upon cured faster, they did the same with plants, and same thing. But I don't know how objective that test was and the integrity of it, I'm still an athiest though.

 

[Asus]

If god is Almighty...
Then Could he create such a huge rock, that he couldn't lift it himself?.

If god was/is Forever..
Then who created "it"?

You are talking about someone who is beyond limits and then a rock defined. Human understanding is quite limited. That's why we search for understanding with our reasoning in science.

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.

I have an issue with this statment here.
Good is determined by God. His will is Good. What is not His will is bad.

(assuming god exists as he is in the bible)
im interested to see a christian reply to what im about to say:
now free-will is very valuable. the god of the bible retains it well in the world, since we are able to do whatever we want. good. i like free-will. BUT why did god make such a dire end consequence(being hell) if you don't convert? a place of horrible eternal suffering with satan and his demons? how about this idea: why not kill off satan and the demons after the world ends, and make a place thats nowhere NEAR as good as heaven, still separated from god, but no one is suffering, kinda like another earth? that way people will still regret not going to heaven PLUS there won't be as many christians that convert to christianity based on fear. which leads them to hell anyways. see the problem with threatening people with hell is, many people will make the decision to follow god out of fear alone. god could have eliminated this unneeded fear and future horrible suffering, by just taking my idea above. it wouldn't violate anything in the bible, it wouldn't violate free-will. now i ask you christians, why isn't this a better idea?

Hell is eternal life in the absence of God

Heaven is eternal life in the prescese of God

Bingo.
Plus Link.

My Aunt and Uncle used to go to church, they used to at least half-way believe but they never developed a relationship with Him. They have since stopped going to church and talking to the Lord. Over the years they have changed drasticly from being near to God to having the "world's view" on life. They are not the same people they once were.
I know a great number of people, I for one, who had once doubt in Gods faith and existance, lived how they wanted to live or having no integrity. They now have a faith in God, a great joy and passion living and have found truth.

Just imagine a room with a spotlight. Those who are in the dark will go to Hell and those who are in the light will go to Heaven. God's truth will draw or scatter people. Should check out John 9:1, it touches on what I said.

I've been an athiest. I don't think too many in this generation have actually read the Bible. Not about the bible or assumtions but actually picking it up and deciding from the book itself.

One of my pet peaves is when people say they believe in God yet don't believe what the Bible says. It's God's word but they pick and choose what fits their life from it.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I have an issue with this statment here.
Good is determined by God. His will is Good. What is not His will is bad.

so then what about statement (5) in neutrino's arguement?

I know a great number of people, I for one, who had once doubt in Gods faith and existance, lived how they wanted to live or having no integrity. They now have a faith in God, a great joy and passion living and have found truth.

that's great for them. of course there are very passionate and joyful atheists too

One of my pet peaves is when people say they believe in God yet don't believe what the Bible says. It's God's word but they pick and choose what fits their life from it.

you mean christians specifically right?

 

[Asus]

so then what about statement (5) in neutrino's arguement?
that's great for them. of course there are very passionate and joyful atheists too
you mean christians specifically right?

I don't agree with it either.

It was an example.
There is really a difference between joyful and happy. Happy is temporary. I don't see too many athiests who can be at peace when something terrible happens in their life or when that thing that makes them happy goes away.

Just anyone who says "I believe in God" with no meaning and action behind it.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

There is really a difference between joyful and happy. Happy is temporary. I don't see too many athiests who can be at peace when something terrible happens in their life or when that thing that makes them happy goes away.

an arbitray distinction. i take great joy in life, and i need no god. so now you see one at least

 

[Neutrino]

I don't agree with it either.

It was an example.

You need to look at the whole argument, not just one part.

Here it is again:

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.

You say you don't agree with either statement #2 or statement #5, but both of those are "if" statements. One says morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, and the other says morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good. This is explained in statement #1.

If Divine Command theory is true than one of those statements is true as well. There isn't really any other option.

You say:

Good is determined by God. His will is Good. What is not His will is bad.

This is in agreement with statement #5 as Timmy pointed out.

There is really a difference between joyful and happy. Happy is temporary. I don't see too many athiests who can be at peace when something terrible happens in their life or when that thing that makes them happy goes away.

Just anyone who says "I believe in God" with no meaning and action behind it.

I don't think you can really compare your feelings of happiness to other's feelings of happiness as you can't know or understand what they are really feeling. Whose to say your happiness is better than mine, or my happiness is better than yours? That's impossible to determine.

 

[Gray Fox]

You are talking about someone who is beyond limits and then a rock defined. Human understanding is quite limited. That's why we search for understanding with our reasoning in science.

I have an issue with this statment here.
Good is determined by God. His will is Good. What is not His will is bad.



Bingo.
Plus Link.

My Aunt and Uncle used to go to church, they used to at least half-way believe but they never developed a relationship with Him. They have since stopped going to church and talking to the Lord. Over the years they have changed drasticly from being near to God to having the "world's view" on life. They are not the same people they once were.
I know a great number of people, I for one, who had once doubt in Gods faith and existance, lived how they wanted to live or having no integrity. They now have a faith in God, a great joy and passion living and have found truth.

Just imagine a room with a spotlight. Those who are in the dark will go to Hell and those who are in the light will go to Heaven. God's truth will draw or scatter people. Should check out John 9:1, it touches on what I said.

I've been an athiest. I don't think too many in this generation have actually read the Bible. Not about the bible or assumtions but actually picking it up and deciding from the book itself.

One of my pet peaves is when people say they believe in God yet don't believe what the Bible says. It's God's word but they pick and choose what fits their life from it.

About you're last sentence, I don't believe in any cristian or muslim god, but I also understand that nothing is inpossible, so he may exist, to me its a 50 50 chance, but I do believe that if god exists, none of the religions represent "it" right, they just can't, look at al the contradiction, if such a beeing existed I don't think it could be explained or its message conveyed by us, but I am an atheist in the way that I don't believe in any god of the religions, well maybe a little shintoism, but thats it.

 

[Asus]

You need to look at the whole argument, not just one part.

God's way is right. The other is wrong.
On #2, morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good. They are His way and they are not independant of God.
On #5, morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. There is great reason to care about God's morality. He is the creator. He is not just another person who you can throw their opinion away and who does not affect you.

It's from the point of view of disproving God. The if statements do not come to the correct conclusions. I can make similar statments disproving just about anything using my own If statments.

I don't think you can really compare your feelings of happiness to other's feelings of happiness as you can't know or understand what they are really feeling.[/QUOTE]I don't think you know the Joy which I speak of. I was 'joyfull' once as an athiest too. I have an idea what you mean.

About you're last sentence, I don't believe in any cristian or muslim god, but I also understand that nothing is inpossible, so he may exist, to me its a 50 50 chance, but I do believe that if god exists, none of the religions represent "it" right, they just can't, look at al the contradiction, if such a beeing existed I don't think it could be explained or its message conveyed by us, but I am an atheist in the way that I don't believe in any god of the religions, well maybe a little shintoism, but thats it.

The reason I thought something else was out there when I was searching was because we cannot be explained as we are. I willingly opened myself up to God and that's when I found Him.

I think most religions have parts of truth in them but stuck to those ideals and rules they set that goes with their religion and were blind to Jesus and other truths. There are a few sub religions that have it mostly right, in my opinion, with the important things correct. I don't go off religion as you know it, because that is mostly man's implementation, but rather God's word and faith. I keep an open heart so I am not blinded by nit picky rules.

 

[Neutrino]

God's way is right. The other is wrong.
On #2, morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good. They are His way and they are not independant of God.
On #5, morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. There is great reason to care about God's morality. He is the creator. He is not just another person who you can throw their opinion away and who does not affect you.

It's from the point of view of disproving God. The if statements do not come to the correct conclusions. I can make similar statments disproving just about anything using my own If statments.

I'll try to give some further explanation on the Euthyphro dilemma. See their are two options you can choose. Either option in statement #2 or the option in statement #5. You chose the option in statement #5, that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by god you arrive at what's known as the emtiness problem and the problem of abhorrent commands.

The Emptiness problem:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/emptiness.html

The second answer that the divine command theorist might give to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. As has been said, giving this answer results in the emptiness problem. The emptiness problem is the problem that divine command theory appears to entail that the standard moral claims about God are empty tautologies. If divine command theory is true, the emptiness objection holds, then statements such as “God is good”, “God’s commands are good” and “God’s actions are good” are trivially true. The classical theist, of course, is committed to both the truth and the significance of these claims. It is because of the truth of these claims, it is often thought, that God is worthy of worship. If these claims are trivial tautologies, as the emptiness problem implies, then their truth would hardly be a ground for worship.

If divine command theory is true, then God’s will is the standard of moral goodness. To say that God is good, then, would be to say that God is as he wants to be. To say that God’s commands are good would be to say that God commands what he wants to command. To say that God’s actions are good would be to say that doesn’t forbid himself from doing anything that he does. There is surely, however, more to moral goodness than this.

The Problem of Abhorrent Commands:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/abhorrentcommands.html

The second answer that the divine command theorist might give to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. As has been said, giving this answer results in the problem of abhorrent commands. The problem of abhorrent commands is the problem that divine command theory appears to entail that even morally abhorrent acts such as rape, murder and genocide could possibly be morally good.

God, being all-powerful, could possibly command rape, murder and genocide. As it happens, he chooses not to, the theist will say, but it does seem to follow from God’s omnipotence that he could issue such commands.

If God were to command rape, murder and genocide, then divine command theory appears to imply that rape, murder and genocide would be morally laudable. The fact that it is possible for God to command such acts therefore implies that it is possible for such acts to be morally laudable.

However, it just doesn’t seem to be true to most people that if God commanded such abhorrent acts as rape, murder and genocide then those acts would be morally laudable. This thought experiment--”What if God were to command such acts?”--therefore seems to show that divine command theory is false. This is the problem of abhorrent commands.

Now to be fair there are some common responses to these arguments, which are talked about in those articles. But these responses have many of their own problems as well.

I don't think you know the Joy which I speak of. I was 'joyfull' once as an athiest too. I have an idea what you mean.

Joy is purely subjective. You have no idea whether I feel the same amount of joy as you or whether it is of the same quality.

 

[Asus]

Well, what science really falls short is it's dependance on emprirical methods. God is hope, life, love. It is impossible to invision rape, murder, etc as morrally good.

Do you know how a drain system is made? The pipes curve down toward the trunk so when they clean the drain it will go out the pipes and not back up another.
If you try to prove something backwards you can end up in the wrong place. Just like if you try to clean a pipe system from below or outside you can reach any drain. If you take the insideout aproach you will reach the same pipe and direction from the drains in the room.

The joy that I talk about is the Joy in God my savior. It's really something to experience.

 

[Neutrino]

Well, what science really falls short is it's dependance on emprirical methods. God is hope, life, love. It is impossible to invision rape, murder, etc as morrally good.

This really isn't science. It's reasoning and philosophy. I suppose you could argue that it is the science of philosophy, but it does not really follow the same rules and standards of true science.

Now I disagree that it is impossible to invision something like murder as morally good. Take the following scenario:

A person breaks into someone's house. The father hears this and grabs a gun from the closet and heads towards his son's room. As he comes to the doorway he sees the person just about to kill his son while he's sleeping. He's too far away to tackle the person and there is a dresser between them that is blocking the view of the person's body. The father is only able to see the persons head and a gun being pointed at his sun. As he sees the person begin to squeeze the trigger the only option he has is to shoot the person in the head or else let his son die. Is that wrong? Should he just let his son die rather than take the chance that he will kill the assailent when he shoots him in the head?

My point is just that it is not impossible to invision that murder could be morally good. Sorry, for rambling a bit off the topic there, but it's just interesting to note that it is difficult to make any absolute statements about morality.

But anyway, the argument that you cannot invision these things as morally good doesn't answer the argument presented by the problem of abhorrent commands. If God is omnipotent and the sole source of morality then it follows that he should be able to give such commands.

Do you know how a drain system is made? The pipes curve down toward the trunk so when they clean the drain it will go out the pipes and not back up another.
If you try to prove something backwards you can end up in the wrong place. Just like if you try to clean a pipe system from below or outside you can reach any drain. If you take the insideout aproach you will reach the same pipe and direction from the drains in the room.

This argument would seem to equally apply to any argument about God, including the argument that he exists. You seem to be saying that the method of examining God and his actions from a human viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. Well if that is the case, then the attempt at trying to understand the Bible or any aspect of God, such as his words and laws would be equally flawed.

The joy that I talk about is the Joy in God my savior. It's really something to experience.

I don't doubt that it is a very joyfull experience for you. However, that doesn't mean it would be a joyfull experience for me or that my current experience isn't just as joyfull.