What if it became scientifically proven that God exists? (Ver 2)

[JohnB]

What if in the future it became scientifically proven that God (creator) exists? By this I mean a self conscious entity that had the ability to create this Universe that we live in.

 

What if it was possible to communicate with this entity?

 

What if when asked about scripture and the "Revealed Word of God" It replied that It had nothing to do with it, It never revealed anything to anyone.

 

How would the Theists and Athiests react to this news? Since both parties would be shown to be both right and wrong in their beliefs?

 

Yes, there is a "God" which makes the Theists right and the Atheists wrong, but at the same time "religion" has no basis in fact, making the Atheists right and the Theists wrong.

 

Thoughts?

[lemur]

Even if this would happen, how would the entity PROVE that it was God? Theologically, I don't think it could because such 'proof' could just as easily be construed as an evil being (Satan) attempting to trick/seduce people out of faith-based belief into evidence-based belief. Thus, some people would buy into it while others would see it as a test of their faith and seek divine revelation through prayer. This sort of relates, imo, to why Jesus has gained popular acceptance as messiah - i.e. because he preached direct revelation through Holy Spirit. If he would have taught people to ignore their direct relationship with God and obey him as God without question, he probably wouldn't have been revered as messiah or accepted as God incarnate by so many people.

[ecoli]

Even if this would happen, how would the entity PROVE that it was God?

 

You need sufficient evidence that rules out alternative hypotheses: such as you're hallucinating or insane.

[mooeypoo]

You guys are missing the point. This is a hypothetical "pretend" game to try and formulate a thought experiment and go with it. In order to participate, you need to pretend.

 

As in, Assuming "all the above is true" and ignoring problems with any of it, we will test the thought and see where it leads us. Yaknow, like philosophers do. Like Plato and Descartes.

 

 

 

For me, I think I'd be impressed and mostly curious if that happened. I'd want to understand what made God tick and what out of our understanding of physics needs to be changed (or utterly fails) to allow for the existence of a being that's otherwise "outside" the laws of physics that we know of.

 

I think it will likely create a bit of a mess with theologians, but quite honestly, I don't see it destroying them completely. Most religions came out of pretty tough theological snafoos and remained intact. Even cults with the occasional (and repeated) "end of the world" scenario seem to keep going even after their intended expiration date expires.

 

It's amazing what we can convince ourselves when we're just totally convinced of one particular view. I think even if God herself walked down to the Earth, proved her godliness repeatedly, and then denounced all the religious scriptures? You'd still have people study and follow them.

 

 

 

Finally, just a few points about your last statement:

• The idea that the holy book can be found to be not divinely inspired doesn't make the religion wrong.
• The idea that the holy book can be found to be wrong does not make the religion wrong.
• The idea that the religion's God states they had nothing to do with the holy book doesn't mean the holy book had nothing to do with them. As in, religious folk can still claim "tapping into" spiritual truths even without God's entire cooperation. A sort of intellectual divine and spiritual viruses. Or something.

[DrmDoc]

What if in the future it became scientifically proven that God (creator) exists? By this I mean a self conscious entity that had the ability to create this Universe that we live in.

 

What if it was possible to communicate with this entity?

 

What if when asked about scripture and the "Revealed Word of God" It replied that It had nothing to do with it, It never revealed anything to anyone.

 

How would the Theists and Athiests react to this news? Since both parties would be shown to be both right and wrong in their beliefs?

 

Yes, there is a "God" which makes the Theists right and the Atheists wrong, but at the same time "religion" has no basis in fact, making the Atheists right and the Theists wrong.

 

Thoughts?

The earthly debates about his, her, or its intent for us, the world, or existence seem small and insignificant to me. If I could converse with such a being, I'd want to know who or what created it and then I'd want to know who or what created that who or what and so on ad infinitum. I could never be convinced that an omnipotent being created itself. Everthing, in my opinion, had a beginning including the God entity should it be found to exist. Regardless of the science and math, I will never be convinced that something sprang into being from absolute nothing. God, if existent, would have to be as much a creation as humanity--again, in my opinion.

[Spyman]

Thoughts?

Personally I would not have any problems accepting valid scientific evidence of a "creator" but I think in such a case it would be of uttermost importance for the human race to find out the purpouse of our Universe and whether we are part of the great scheme or an unexpected mishap that might need correction.

[CaptainPanic]

In our universe, everything influences everything else... If God therefore lives in our universe, I can influence god. That means it's not almighty, and therefore it's not god. Anyway, if we ignore even that, and go with the idea that God is the omnipotent creator and had nothing to do with any religion or holy books, then I would react with utter fear. Fear of a World War between the different religious factions of the world, under the rather uninterested eye of the creator, to whom our wars must seem rather insignificant in relation to the bigger things in the universe.

 

Obviously, the logical thing would be to make peace, and accept all religions as equal. But that's not how human politics works. And religion is politics.

We now know for fact that (1) God doesn't really care if we slaughter each other, because of our previous experiences in all the wars and (2) god is with everybody and nobody at the same time. So the only way to really come out on top is to completely eradicate the opponents.

 

I would travel to a far away remote area of the world and sit it out.

 

Personally I would not have any problems accepting valid scientific evidence of a "creator" but I think in such a case it would be of uttermost importance for the human race to find out the purpouse of our Universe and whether we are part of the great scheme or an unexpected mishap that might need correction.

Indeed. It would be typically human to consider God an enemy as soon as it's discovered. "What if we're a mishap that need correction?". "Wouldn't it be safer to destroy the omnipotent god before it destroys us?". "God never helped us, he has never sides with us. Therefore, he must be against us".

That kind of thinking.

Edited March 17, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[lemur]

You need sufficient evidence that rules out alternative hypotheses: such as you're hallucinating or insane.

That assumes that sanity is a sufficient basis to verify omnipotence as more than an impressive claim. I don't see how omnipotence could be verified in any positive sense, which is why I think theology is necessarily "faith-based." Humans have the capacity for faith beyond what can be rationally verified, and this is the best argument/cause for the existence of God, imo. I.e. God = faith.

 

 

 

You guys are missing the point. This is a hypothetical "pretend" game to try and formulate a thought experiment and go with it. In order to participate, you need to pretend.

 

As in, Assuming "all the above is true" and ignoring problems with any of it, we will test the thought and see where it leads us. Yaknow, like philosophers do. Like Plato and Descartes.

"Hypothetical 'pretend' games" are the way most science is applied, and the way most other everyday knowledge is applied as well. Can you imagine having to teach students to analyze every homework problem using only empirical experimentation? Theoretical modeling is the preferred method because imagination is immediately available and is very powerful.

 

For me, I think I'd be impressed and mostly curious if that happened. I'd want to understand what made God tick and what out of our understanding of physics needs to be changed (or utterly fails) to allow for the existence of a being that's otherwise "outside" the laws of physics that we know of.

Then observe your own imagination at work. Yes, you are capable of subjecting all your thoughts and perceptions to physical laws and declaring them plausible or not on that basis. But that doesn't stop you from defying those laws in your imagination/dreams/subjectivity. Please imagine for a moment what subjective experience would be like if you were completely incapable of imagining anything that defied physical laws. Now don't imagine it to perform a simulation of the inability to imagine it. Did your imagination quit?

 

It's amazing what we can convince ourselves when we're just totally convinced of one particular view. I think even if God herself walked down to the Earth, proved her godliness repeatedly, and then denounced all the religious scriptures? You'd still have people study and follow them.

That's because the same God gave people the power to choose, if in fact She was the truly original creator and not relegated to the role of mother for a creation not totally of her own design.

 

The idea that the holy book can be found to be not divinely inspired doesn't make the religion wrong.

• The idea that the holy book can be found to be wrong does not make the religion wrong.
• The idea that the religion's God states they had nothing to do with the holy book doesn't mean the holy book had nothing to do with them. As in, religious folk can still claim "tapping into" spiritual truths even without God's entire cooperation. A sort of intellectual divine and spiritual viruses. Or something.

Good points.

 

Everthing, in my opinion, had a beginning including the God entity should it be found to exist. Regardless of the science and math, I will never be convinced that something sprang into being from absolute nothing. God, if existent, would have to be as much a creation as humanity--again, in my opinion.

I bet you could, given enough motivation. That is why fear of death motivates people to believe. They have to believe that something preceded their existence and will continue after their death or they become paralyzed with fear and unable to live their lives. And if such people's minds could be stimulated to function this way, why wouldn't it be a potentiality latent in all humans? Now, whether it is positive or negative that they reach such a state of consciousness is another question.

 

 

[DrmDoc]

I bet you could, given enough motivation. That is why fear of death motivates people to believe. They have to believe that something preceded their existence and will continue after their death or they become paralyzed with fear and unable to live their lives. And if such people's minds could be stimulated to function this way, why wouldn't it be a potentiality latent in all humans? Now, whether it is positive or negative that they reach such a state of consciousness is another question.

 

I'll take that bet; death hasn't been a fear of mine since I was a child and I'm not one who readily believes in an afterlife as many do. However, I do believe that every effect has a cause, which would include the effect we call God. The ideal that an omnipotent being created itself is nonsense because the idea infers some existence of that being before its creation. How can a being create itself before it ever existed? How insane or uneducated does one have to be to believe in such a silly notion?

[lemur]

I'll take that bet; death hasn't been a fear of mine since I was a child and I'm not one who readily believes in an afterlife as many do. However, I do believe that every effect has a cause, which would include the effect we call God. The ideal that an omnipotent being created itself is nonsense because the idea infers some existence of that being before its creation. How can a being create itself before it ever existed? How insane or uneducated does one have to be to believe in such a silly notion?

You can take the psychological/philosophical route to understanding it, as an educated person, if you want. If you believe that every cause has an effect, then there must be an infinite series of antecedent causes. Thus you could end up with the question, "what caused causation?" That is, of course, a tautological question since it asks about causation in reference to itself. So that leaves you with the subjective freedom to choose what to do about this tautological trap. That (creative) subjective freedom can best be explained in reference to itself because there is no other explanation that doesn't involve a prior antecedent cause. I.e. "if there exists an original creator, who created that? Did the ability to create precede the existence of the original creative being? etc. etc." So once you just acknowledge that creative power in fact exists (somehow), then you can use it to CREATE whatever explanation for it you want and include whatever you want in your creation. I.e. you have total poetic license. But how do you use it? You are totally free to decide. etc. etc. I believe that these are the kinds of questions that led up to people writing holy texts like those of the bible.

 

Eventually they came to fundamental beliefs about good and evil and decided it would be good to write about those in a way to enlighten other people to whatever insights they had developed in their free thinking. The interesting thing though, imo, is that creative power is self-referential in theology. The theologist creates God by writing about "Him" and attributes the creativity to do so to "the creative spirit" itself. This always makes me think of the first lines of the book of John that go something like, "in the beginning there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." It's all very self-referential philosophy but it makes sense in a way if you don't get caught up in trying to dissect it as a material claim. It is philosophy. Its fundamental basis is knowledge.

 

Materialism presumes knowledge to be a perfect conduit of material factualities, but if that were the case how could you end up with issues like "how did the act of creation begin?" You know what it means for things to "create" but you can't even define it without creating a definition. So you CREATE the concept of God to refer to the entity that was originally responsible for the earliest acts of creation and then philosophize (theologize actually) about what "creation" means and how far it extends, etc.

 

Too many people seem to want desperately to close off thought to anything except materialist thinking but wouldn't that in itself defy the materiality of the mind and its innate ability to think beyond materiality?

 

 

[mooeypoo]

"Hypothetical 'pretend' games" are the way most science is applied, and the way most other everyday knowledge is applied as well. Can you imagine having to teach students to analyze every homework problem using only empirical experimentation? Theoretical modeling is the preferred method because imagination is immediately available and is very powerful.

 

Not quite in the same way that philosophical ones are made, though. In science, you need to be able to base your initial hypothesis on something scientifically or empirically logical and/or supported. In philosophy, you can decide on an agreed upon initial premise ("let's pretend X is true.") without need of substantiation, and think it through from that point onwards logically.

 

Socrates takes these "experiments" to the extreme.. the point, though, is that in order to do the experiment, you don't need to substantiate the first claim. You just "grant it", and then see what might follow. Everyone who participates are supposed to agree that the initial statement might be totally bunk, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of the "experiment".

 

That's the point.

 

This isn't homework analysis, it's a philosophical question. The question is "If we grant that X, Y, Z are true, then what would A, B, C mean?". Simple enough. The question of whether or not X, Y, Z are logical at all is a totally DIFFERENT philosophical question. I agree with you that it's a warranted question, it's just not relevant to our current thread.

 

For that matter, philosophers always "grant" stuff they disbelieve in for the sake of argument and to see if they hold true -- Descartes "grants" the atheists 'there is no god' view for a whole piece of his Meditation and follows it logically (we can argue about the type of logic he uses, but that's a different argument too) to a certain conclusion. Socrates grants quite a whole number of claims that SOUND "silly" at first just to see where his logic leads him.

 

That's the point.

 

Then observe your own imagination at work. Yes, you are capable of subjecting all your thoughts and perceptions to physical laws and declaring them plausible or not on that basis.

 

No no no. Not at all. I declare the physical laws MORE than just "plausible" and absolutely NOT just by being capable of subjecting them to my thoughts or by understanding them. I do that because they can be substantiated OBJECTIVELY.

 

For that matter, I totally cannot understand a whole bunch of physical laws (Quantum mechanics is merely a small example of such) and yet I view them as substantiated by factual objective experiments and logic.

 

Nothing to do with my perception. Now, please, let's go back to the argument at hand here - this isn't the point.

 

But that doesn't stop you from defying those laws in your imagination/dreams/subjectivity. Please imagine for a moment what subjective experience would be like if you were completely incapable of imagining anything that defied physical laws. Now don't imagine it to perform a simulation of the inability to imagine it. Did your imagination quit?

 

Read my previous point, andI don't understand what your point is at all. The "thought experiment" is set up quite simply. This is really a matter of whether or not you want to participate in it. If you do, then play by the rules rather than arguing with them.

 

Assume X Y Z and now tell us what A B C will conclude. If you can't do it, don't participate in the game. Fair, no?

 

 

That's because the same God gave people the power to choose, if in fact She was the truly original creator and not relegated to the role of mother for a creation not totally of her own design.

We're talking about a case where God *ADMITTED* to *NOT* being part of those religions, not delegating to them, not having ANYTHING to do with them. That is not answered by your point.

 

Good points.

Thanks.

 

I bet you could, given enough motivation. That is why fear of death motivates people to believe. They have to believe that something preceded their existence and will continue after their death or they become paralyzed with fear and unable to live their lives. And if such people's minds could be stimulated to function this way, why wouldn't it be a potentiality latent in all humans?

The fact people feel better believing there's life after death does not prove the existence of life after death. You do see that flaw in your logic, don't you?

 

It's very comforting for me to believe that my dog loves me. That doesn't make the fact I have no dog be any less real. We are all inclined to feel loved and feel like we will always be here. That doesn't mean God exists, or that there's an afterlife, or that any of the religious scriptures are, in any way, true or false.

 

It just means we want to be loved and we really hate the fact our bodies decay. That's all it means.

 

For that matter, lemur, there ARE people who don't believe in the afterlife and are NOT paralyzed by their fear of death. Me, for instance.

 

Now, whether it is positive or negative that they reach such a state of consciousness is another question.

You again just drop a bombshell and expect us to go with it. *YOU* might think that this is a higher state of consciousness doesn't make it a higher state of consciousness. Maybe it's just a thought? or a fear? Why is this "higher state" and enjoying an incredible piece of prose not a "higher state of consciousness"? Or solving a physical equation? Or listening to rock music?

 

I'm curious, because you seem to be answering everything other than the original question, so let me ask a slightly different one, but more "blunt". I'd really want to see your answer: *ASSUMING* God comes down to earth and claims without a shred of doubt and without any possibility of misunderstanding that she (or he) had NOTHING to do with the religions that are on Earth, and that as far as they are concerned, these religions have NOTHING to do with God. Would it change anything for you?

 

Answer honestly. Try to assume the first premises. That's the philosophical question here.

 

 

~moo

 

Too many people seem to want desperately to close off thought to anything except materialist thinking but wouldn't that in itself defy the materiality of the mind and its innate ability to think beyond materiality?

Speaks the one who *seems* to be a tad closed off to anything except the idea God exists? Do you see that if you are the one who opens this case, it must also work on the other side. Right?

[lemur]

No no no. Not at all. I declare the physical laws MORE than just "plausible" and absolutely NOT just by being capable of subjecting them to my thoughts or by understanding them. I do that because they can be substantiated OBJECTIVELY.

You're talking about evaluating the content of imagination. I am talking about the brain's unadulterated ability to imagine things that are objectively unsubstantiable.

 

Assume X Y Z and now tell us what A B C will conclude. If you can't do it, don't participate in the game. Fair, no?

I don't understand what you mean exactly.

 

We're talking about a case where God *ADMITTED* to *NOT* being part of those religions, not delegating to them, not having ANYTHING to do with them. That is not answered by your point.

But you have no way of verifying that the being claiming to be God is actually God without faith. How can you test for ultimate omnipotence, especially when Satan has supposedly almost the same power as God but uses it for evil instead of good?

 

The fact people feel better believing there's life after death does not prove the existence of life after death. You do see that flaw in your logic, don't you?

No, of course not. But I was trying to explain that faith works in the absence of proof. I don't think God's existence or that of an afterlife or reincarnation can be objectively tested, so that leaves answering such questions open to faith and faith alone, no?

 

It's very comforting for me to believe that my dog loves me. That doesn't make the fact I have no dog be any less real. We are all inclined to feel loved and feel like we will always be here. That doesn't mean God exists, or that there's an afterlife, or that any of the religious scriptures are, in any way, true or false.

No, but if it makes you happy to believe that the dog loves you, why wouldn't you believe it on the basis of faith and your will for it to be true?

 

For that matter, lemur, there ARE people who don't believe in the afterlife and are NOT paralyzed by their fear of death. Me, for instance.

This may sound strange, but maybe you haven't actually given up your belief in an afterlife yet. I was an atheist for a while, but then I realized that I was keeping my subjectivity separate from my materialism. Once I started to really reflect on subjectivity and what it would mean to lose everything meaningful to me, I felt sad and became concerned with life after death, at least as a subjective belief.

 

You again just drop a bombshell and expect us to go with it. *YOU* might think that this is a higher state of consciousness doesn't make it a higher state of consciousness. Maybe it's just a thought? or a fear? Why is this "higher state" and enjoying an incredible piece of prose not a "higher state of consciousness"? Or solving a physical equation? Or listening to rock music?

I didn't say "higher" state of consciousness. I just said a universally available one.

 

I'm curious, because you seem to be answering everything other than the original question, so let me ask a slightly different one, but more "blunt". I'd really want to see your answer: *ASSUMING* God comes down to earth and claims without a shred of doubt and without any possibility of misunderstanding that she (or he) had NOTHING to do with the religions that are on Earth, and that as far as they are concerned, these religions have NOTHING to do with God. Would it change anything for you?

How could s/he claim such a thing if s/he created everything, and gave humans their ability to create religion(s)? Wouldn't religions be like her grandchildren then, if humans were her children?

 

 

Speaks the one who *seems* to be a tad closed off to anything except the idea God exists? Do you see that if you are the one who opens this case, it must also work on the other side. Right?

No. I don't get what you mean by this.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

You're talking about evaluating the content of imagination. I am talking about the brain's unadulterated ability to imagine things that are objectively unsubstantiable.

That's a completely different argument (and I disagree with you about it). Let's leave it for its own thread. Open it if you want.

 

I don't understand what you mean exactly.

There is a clear question in this thread. You seem to be ignoring it and arguing against it instead of trying to follow it to a sort of a conclusion.

 

But you have no way of verifying that the being claiming to be God is actually God without faith. How can you test for ultimate omnipotence, especially when Satan has supposedly almost the same power as God but uses it for evil instead of good?

That's not the question, though. The question clearly stated that we assume the being *proved* it is God. That means we assume it is God. Because that's the question.

 

If you don't want to play, you can just leave this thread alone, lemur.

 

It does, however, seem to support *MY* claim that regardless of what happens and how clear evidence is supplied, those who are stuck in their beliefs will continue to be so.

 

No, of course not. But I was trying to explain that faith works in the absence of proof. I don't think God's existence or that of an afterlife or reincarnation can be objectively tested, so that leaves answering such questions open to faith and faith alone, no?

Your faith works *despite* proof, which is why it's faith, and that's just fine. But this isn't question about afterlife or about why I disagree with the statement you provided. Let's try to stick to the topic. Feel free to start a new thread about whether or not the question of afterlife and spirituality can or cannot be handled by science. I know a few who'd probably participate.

 

This ain't the thread though.

 

No, but if it makes you happy to believe that the dog loves you, why wouldn't you believe it on the basis of faith and your will for it to be true?

Sure. But then I might ignore what *really* happens. So, I *could* replace reality with faith, but I'm not too sure how much that will help me understand how the world *actually* works as opposed to what I want to believe is the way it works. See my point?

 

This may sound strange, but maybe you haven't actually given up your belief in an afterlife yet. I was an atheist for a while, but then I realized that I was keeping my subjectivity separate from my materialism. Once I started to really reflect on subjectivity and what it would mean to lose everything meaningful to me, I felt sad and became concerned with life after death, at least as a subjective belief.

Please don't play my shrink here, it is fruitless. Beyond the fact that this is a question for a different thread (as I said above), you can't POSSIBLY know what I do or do not believe in truly. I can't either about you.

 

Don't psychoanalyze me, and don't preach. We're dealing with a specific question here, so let's focus on it. You still haven't answered or related to the actual question, only to why you think this exercise is stupid. And I have to say, I don't see why you participate in the thread if you think it's so pointless.

 

I didn't say "higher" state of consciousness. I just said a universally available one.

Okay, I'm not going to argue. You can look your own quote up. It' doesn't matter. Either way, my point stands. This claim is subjective, and hence cannot be generalized. Nice try, though.

 

How could s/he claim such a thing if s/he created everything, and gave humans their ability to create religion(s)? Wouldn't religions be like her grandchildren then, if humans were her children?

 

Let's say I had 5 children, they grew up and produced 5 more children each. One of those 5 children is a thief and a murderer. He is caught and brought to jail.

 

I *physically* created my children (with my husband, which God lacks, but the point stands).

I encouraged them to go a certain way, possibly, as most people do when they educate their young.

I did not - and could not - dictate their thoughts, or their specific day to day actions. Nor does God, by his or her own admission in the different religious books. God is said to have created us and tried to lead us (like a parent) but not control us like puppets.

 

If that's the case, then while God is responsible by PROXY to whatever we do, God can ABSOLUTELY take her hands off and remove responsibility for something man has made. I, the parent, can TOTALLY say "hey.. I tried to teach my child about good. They made their own choices in life."

 

The fact I created my child physically, does not mean I control my child like a puppet. Hence, my child has certain freedom, which also allows that child to create things I disapprove of.

 

So. Man *CAN* create things God disapprove of.

 

Again our question: Assuming God exists. Assuming God proved herself or himself according to whatever measurements of faith you have, and this proof is undeniable. Assuming God then says they remove any and all responsibility from the religious scriptures of all religions, saying that they were created by man, but they do NOT approve of them.

 

Assuming all that -- how would it affect you?

 

Can you just TRY to answer the question?

 

 

 

~moo

[lemur]

That's not the question, though. The question clearly stated that we assume the being *proved* it is God. That means we assume it is God. Because that's the question.

 

If you don't want to play, you can just leave this thread alone, lemur.

I can't point out that "proving God's existence" is inherently contradictory to the logic of God as a faith-based belief?

 

It does, however, seem to support *MY* claim that regardless of what happens and how clear evidence is supplied, those who are stuck in their beliefs will continue to be so.

You say "stuck" as if it has to be passive. People can actively exercise faith without being "stuck" in it. How many people are stuck in resistance against subjective experimentation with blind faith?

 

Your faith works *despite* proof, which is why it's faith, and that's just fine. But this isn't question about afterlife or about why I disagree with the statement you provided. Let's try to stick to the topic. Feel free to start a new thread about whether or not the question of afterlife and spirituality can or cannot be handled by science. I know a few who'd probably participate.

 

This ain't the thread though.

My point is that you can't talk about God as anything EXCEPT a faith-based entity. God is a PROJECTION of faith, nothing more. It is a TOTAL PROJECTION, though, so you can't reduce it to a fiction because doing so would imply that faith is less than total.

 

Sure. But then I might ignore what *really* happens. So, I *could* replace reality with faith, but I'm not too sure how much that will help me understand how the world *actually* works as opposed to what I want to believe is the way it works. See my point?

It's the only way you could understand how theology works, imo.

 

Please don't play my shrink here, it is fruitless. Beyond the fact that this is a question for a different thread (as I said above), you can't POSSIBLY know what I do or do not believe in truly. I can't either about you.

 

Don't psychoanalyze me, and don't preach. We're dealing with a specific question here, so let's focus on it. You still haven't answered or related to the actual question, only to why you think this exercise is stupid. And I have to say, I don't see why you participate in the thread if you think it's so pointless.

I just gave you an example from my own experience. Don't take it personally. I don't think it's pointless - I think it raises interesting theological/psychological issues, which I'm raising.

 

I *physically* created my children (with my husband, which God lacks, but the point stands).

I encouraged them to go a certain way, possibly, as most people do when they educate their young.

I did not - and could not - dictate their thoughts, or their specific day to day actions. Nor does God, by his or her own admission in the different religious books. God is said to have created us and tried to lead us (like a parent) but not control us like puppets.

This is why the scriptures contain the story of Lucifer and his fallen angels. It is why people are supposed to have free will to choose between good and evil. Nevertheless, evil is still part of the creation. It is an inherent potential within free will.

 

If that's the case, then while God is responsible by PROXY to whatever we do, God can ABSOLUTELY take her hands off and remove responsibility for something man has made. I, the parent, can TOTALLY say "hey.. I tried to teach my child about good. They made their own choices in life."

That's the way God works in the bible. Ever read the story of Job?

 

The fact I created my child physically, does not mean I control my child like a puppet. Hence, my child has certain freedom, which also allows that child to create things I disapprove of.

 

So. Man *CAN* create things God disapprove of.

Yes, why do you think the bible denies this? God disapproves of Adam and Eve covering themselves. He becomes angry and asks, "who told you that you were naked?" or something like that.

 

Again our question: Assuming God exists. Assuming God proved herself or himself according to whatever measurements of faith you have, and this proof is undeniable. Assuming God then says they remove any and all responsibility from the religious scriptures of all religions, saying that they were created by man, but they do NOT approve of them.

 

Assuming all that -- how would it affect you?

It would pique my interest. I would want to know what was evil about the scriptures and why. I would want to know what would be better.

 

Can you just TRY to answer the question?

how was that?

 

[mooeypoo]

This is inteeresting.

 

The question didn't say the scriptures are evil. It wasn't even stated (or assumed at all) that the fact God removed *responsibility* from scriptures, it means these scriptures are evil. This is a conclusion you seem to make automatically.

 

Can I suggest that there's an alternative logical option? Meaning, it is possible, in this scenario, that God removed direct responsibility for the scriptures, but that does not make them evil, just not entirely what god meant. Or, alternatively, it might mean God is not as perfect as most religions seem to describe him/her.

 

Both options are still plausible under the scenario. Why do the scriptures have to be evil at all? If God rejected *MAN MADE* scriptures, can they not simply be *imperfect*? Why evil?

[lemur]

This is inteeresting.

 

The question didn't say the scriptures are evil. It wasn't even stated (or assumed at all) that the fact God removed *responsibility* from scriptures, it means these scriptures are evil. This is a conclusion you seem to make automatically.

 

Can I suggest that there's an alternative logical option? Meaning, it is possible, in this scenario, that God removed direct responsibility for the scriptures, but that does not make them evil, just not entirely what god meant. Or, alternatively, it might mean God is not as perfect as most religions seem to describe him/her.

 

Both options are still plausible under the scenario. Why do the scriptures have to be evil at all? If God rejected *MAN MADE* scriptures, can they not simply be *imperfect*? Why evil?

I don't see God as rejecting anyone/anything because of imperfection. In fact, the whole idea of using perfection as a basis for judgment doesn't make much sense in terms of theology, imo. The creation is the product of conflict between sin and virtue, good and evil. The two are not always mutually exclusive because they appropriate each other in various ways. Lucifer, for example, is God's greatest angel who "falls from grace" and becomes "perverted/opposed" to goodness for the sake of undermining God's power. Competition with God's power is construed as evil because of the egoism in competing with God, but who is to say that evil-doers don't sometimes accidentally act virtuously despite their malevolent intent?

 

Either way, I don't think God would "reject" scriptures for being made by humans and therefore imperfect. S/he might criticize their faults in order to enlighten people as to better truths, but I don't think a true God would waste energy rejecting and putting down scripture for its faults. I think s/he would focus on disseminating the most enlightening helpful knowledge possible and only focus on criticizing scripture where it had really led people astray, etc. Honestly, though, I think that most scripture turns out to be virtuous or malevolent based on how it is interpreted; and that their are beneficial interpretations possible for practically all scripture. I think people who seek negative interpretations in it are bent on undermining scripture itself and thus the possibility of redeeming it for good, which in itself reeks of evil.

 

 

 

[DrmDoc]

You can take the psychological/philosophical route to understanding it, as an educated person, if you want. If you believe that every cause has an effect, then there must be an infinite series of antecedent causes. Thus you could end up with the question, "what caused causation?" That is, of course, a tautological question since it asks about causation in reference to itself. So that leaves you with the subjective freedom to choose what to do about this tautological trap. That (creative) subjective freedom can best be explained in reference to itself because there is no other explanation that doesn't involve a prior antecedent cause. I.e. "if there exists an original creator, who created that? Did the ability to create precede the existence of the original creative being? etc. etc." So once you just acknowledge that creative power in fact exists (somehow), then you can use it to CREATE whatever explanation for it you want and include whatever you want in your creation. I.e. you have total poetic license. But how do you use it? You are totally free to decide. etc. etc. I believe that these are the kinds of questions that led up to people writing holy texts like those of the bible.

 

Eventually they came to fundamental beliefs about good and evil and decided it would be good to write about those in a way to enlighten other people to whatever insights they had developed in their free thinking. The interesting thing though, imo, is that creative power is self-referential in theology. The theologist creates God by writing about "Him" and attributes the creativity to do so to "the creative spirit" itself. This always makes me think of the first lines of the book of John that go something like, "in the beginning there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." It's all very self-referential philosophy but it makes sense in a way if you don't get caught up in trying to dissect it as a material claim. It is philosophy. Its fundamental basis is knowledge.

 

Materialism presumes knowledge to be a perfect conduit of material factualities, but if that were the case how could you end up with issues like "how did the act of creation begin?" You know what it means for things to "create" but you can't even define it without creating a definition. So you CREATE the concept of God to refer to the entity that was originally responsible for the earliest acts of creation and then philosophize (theologize actually) about what "creation" means and how far it extends, etc.

 

Too many people seem to want desperately to close off thought to anything except materialist thinking but wouldn't that in itself defy the materiality of the mind and its innate ability to think beyond materiality?

 

 

Essentially, you are suggesting that once the existence of a creator is accepted only the edicts of that creator should be our concern. If true, then such a position is akin to merely acknowledging the existence and edicts of our parents without concern or consideration of their lineage and our ancestry. Is our understanding of whom and what we are complete without such concerns and considerations or should we just be content with what our parent say we are? If we are discussing God as fact and not just faith, should we be content with just the fact of God and not know the likely amazing history that is our spiritual lineage beyond God's edicts? Even the bible emphasizes the significance of knowing the ancestry of its prophets, so why not the ancestry of what many consider the father or mother of us all?

 

Aside, your emphasis of "Him" as "the creative spirit" is contrary to what we find in nature and in ourselves. When we consider the edict "On earth as it is in heaven," should there be this contrdiction? From insect to humanity, it is the female that gives birth (creates) and that is most robust. No doubt, as this world nears its end, the last living being will most likely be female--in my opinion.

Edited March 18, 2011 by DrmDoc

[Marat]

A basic truth of logic is that anything can follow from a false statement. Since the existence of God is logically self-contradictory and thus false -- since the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely good being is inconsistent with the existence of unnecessary evil in the world, which we all know exists -- then any inference can follow from the initial assumption of the OP. But if anything can follow from it, the rationality of all thinking collapses, since we no longer have truth and falsity, so the question is strictly unanswerable.

[lemur]

A basic truth of logic is that anything can follow from a false statement. Since the existence of God is logically self-contradictory and thus false -- since the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely good being is inconsistent with the existence of unnecessary evil in the world,

How is the presence of evil inconsistent with the presence of infinite goodness? Aren't they both logically part of infinite everything? Also, what logic suggests that evil is governed by necessity if there is a God? You are making the old false assumption that if God is good and omnipotent S/He would control evil. My understanding of theology is that God has the capacity to intervene in evil-doing but resists doing so in the interest of preserving free-will. In other words, it may be better to intervene through advice/enlightenment instead of control. You are assuming that control of evil would be God's project if S/He was in fact omnipotent, but that's a strawman, imo.

 

which we all know exists -- then any inference can follow from the initial assumption of the OP. But if anything can follow from it, the rationality of all thinking collapses, since we no longer have truth and falsity, so the question is strictly unanswerable.

By overdramatizing the consequences of an unargued assumption, you are making it that much more difficult to discuss. Instead of insisting on your assumption in this way, why don't you just raise them for discussion and invite counterarguments? Don't you think that would make for better discussion?

 

 

[Iggy]

What if in the future it became scientifically proven that God (creator) exists? By this I mean a self conscious entity that had the ability to create this Universe that we live in.

 

"In the present state of the world, it is difficult not to write satire" -Juvenal

 

As a citizen of the united states, I’d like to know if this God is omnipresent. I mention this only because if he plans on staying in the country then he should apply for a visitor’s visa. This may sound harsh, but we’ve had a terrible problem with immigration. I’d like to know what God intends on doing while he is here.

 

If he were to heal all the sick, for example, then he would be stealing the jobs of millions of hard working Americans in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. If he healed all wounds then gun companies would lose millions and I’d personally feel like my second amendment right to threaten a person with a gun somehow got violated by a confusing loophole.

 

It’s just that we don’t need non-citizens coming here and stealing our jobs and voiding our rights no matter how smart and powerful they say they are.

 

And, terrorism!

 

We should have to do a background check on this fella. Of course he says that all of the documentation on him (eg bible, quran, torah) is wrong, but isn’t that a little convenient? All along we know him as this one God and suddenly he shows up as someone else. This is clear and convincing evidence that he has changed his identity in order to perpetrate some nefarious scheme.

 

This is exactly why non-citizens especially need to be subject to secret and aggressive surveillance at all times.

[lemur]

We should have to do a background check on this fella. Of course he says that all of the documentation on him (eg bible, quran, torah) is wrong, but isn't that a little convenient? All along we know him as this one God and suddenly he shows up as someone else. This is clear and convincing evidence that he has changed his identity in order to perpetrate some nefarious scheme.

Lol. . . and if he's omnipotent, he is capable of falsifying his records and documentation; and since heaven doesn't have recognized credentials, there's no way to verify any claims he makes except by his word (on his honor). He'd probably end up getting persecuted or crucified or otherwise mistreated by the system.

[DrmDoc]

A basic truth of logic is that anything can follow from a false statement. Since the existence of God is logically self-contradictory and thus false -- since the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely good being is inconsistent with the existence of unnecessary evil in the world, which we all know exists -- then any inference can follow from the initial assumption of the OP. But if anything can follow from it, the rationality of all thinking collapses, since we no longer have truth and falsity, so the question is strictly unanswerable.

That might apply if I was referencing the existence of God as either a force of good or evil, which I was not. I was referencing the being as primarily a creative and parental force. If I understood correctly, this discussion regarded the hypothetically proven existence of a God, which suggests to me a evidentiary foundation that is hypothetically logical and verifiable. If we are discussing the hypothetics on this basis, there should be no contradictions. For example, a very skilled computer programmer could create a virtual world and populate it with beings of independent minds and adaptive intelligence who acknowledge the programmer as their creator. With this scenario, we have a creator with a human lineage whose programmed beings may one day evolve a curiosity about that lineage. Should the programmer stifle such inquiry or encourage his virtual children's evolving curiosity and, by extention, their growing intelligence?

Edited March 19, 2011 by DrmDoc

[Marat]

But if you restrict 'God' to being an ethically neutral or indifferent origin of everything, are you really discussing an entity which corresponds to the dictionary defintion of God? Aristotle and most Ancient philosophers believed in the type of 'God' you are talking about, referring to him as 'the first uncaused cause.' But does believing in that type of thing state anything interesting? It seems close to just saying that the universe had a determinate origin, which sounds more like a thesis in physics which could be resolved empiricially or by empirical evidence supplemented with various theoretical articulations of that experience. But it wouldn't state anything metaphysical, as the God hypothesis is usually taken to do.

[Djordje]

What is transcendental can't be proven because every statement we make about transcendental has the counter-statement that is as likely to be true as the original statement.

I believe this is the best answer to your question.

[DrmDoc]

But if you restrict 'God' to being an ethically neutral or indifferent origin of everything, are you really discussing an entity which corresponds to the dictionary defintion of God? Aristotle and most Ancient philosophers believed in the type of 'God' you are talking about, referring to him as 'the first uncaused cause.' But does believing in that type of thing state anything interesting? It seems close to just saying that the universe had a determinate origin, which sounds more like a thesis in physics which could be resolved empiricially or by empirical evidence supplemented with various theoretical articulations of that experience. But it wouldn't state anything metaphysical, as the God hypothesis is usually taken to do.

 

The OP presupposes a proven metaphysical being, which necessarily suggests an entity that conforms to the requirements of proof--meaning logic, reason, and verifiable evidence from our physical perspective--rather than faith. In my example, I provided, if you will, a metadatical being, from his creations' perspective, that may conform to their logic although not to their physics or state of being. In that example, one could conceive the programmer's creations reaching an understanding of their God as a type of data exceeding their state of being that arose from a sucession of antecedent data. If this discussion regards the acceptance of a being that exceeds our physics or state of being (metaphysical), my example provides a perspective of how we might come to understand that beings origins. Accepting the proven existence of a metaphysical being suggests a basis in verifiable evidence which suggests some conformity of that evidence to our physical laws and perceptions. I believe that conformity permits our inquiry and understanding of such a being although it remains outside our realm of experience.

Edited March 20, 2011 by DrmDoc