What is your justification for believing in a God?

[doG]

You have come to the conclusion that He.....

Is she....

As an aside, why does everyone refer to god as he or she instead of just "it"? Why assign a gender to something that doesn't procreate?

[zapatos]

As an aside, why does everyone refer to god as he or she instead of just "it"? Why assign a gender to something that doesn't procreate?

As far as I know it is because God is often referred to as 'He' in the bible.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to be taking a rather shallow view of religion.

 

You have come to the conclusion that He can't exist because He did not help you out of trouble last week (assuming he is omnipotent and beneficent).

No religion claims that is how their God acts.

You seem to feel if He has the ability, and it seems to you that he should be helping, then the lack of help is proof He does not exist.

 

This is the same problem I had with the post from Seriously Disabled.

 

If your logic worked, then you could also prove your mother did not exist.

 

You were in trouble (you played ball instead of doing your homework and tomorrow the teacher will yell at you), your mother has the ability to help you (she could do some of the work to help you get it done on time), she wants to perform acts of kindness to you (she is your mother after all), yet she doesn't help.

 

Is she a bastard? Does she not exist? Or is it possible there is something else going on that you might not be aware of? Perhaps she feels she is doing more good by not helping in that way.

 

Ho Hum.

I guess you missed the other bit of what I said "If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too."

Had all the babies who died in the last natural disaster (take your pick of earthquakes, plagues etc) been out playing ball and not doing their homework?

 

It's not just me: it's everybody.

It's not just that he didn't help me- it's that there has never been any sensible evidence in the last thousand years of Him helping anyone, and yet, that's said to be His job.

He's either a failure or non-existent.

 

Incidentally, since her remains were cremated on Friday, it's fair to say that my mother doesn't exist.

[zapatos]

Ho Hum.

Ah, a dismissive attitude. That is fine, we don't need to discuss it.

 

Incidentally, since her remains were cremated on Friday, it's fair to say that my mother doesn't exist.

Very thoughtful of you to also make me feel like shit in the same post.

 

My condolences.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

Sorry as well, to hear about your loss.

 

It brought to mind a tearful speech I gave at my mom's memorial service. All present knew her strong belief in Jesus. I allowed as I was not a believer. I explained that she still existed in the memories of those she had touched in her life, and ended my speech with "she is in the loving arms of Jesus Christ, who she loved."

 

I was not lying, and everybody there, believer or not, knew what I meant.

 

In retrospect, and in concert with this discussion, perhaps "Jesus's Love" can be a real thing, with or without Jesus being a semi-deity. If, that is, that people exhibit it. If she (my mom) is held in the memories of the people she touched, is she not indeed firmly in the embrace of sons and daughters of the "supreme being"?

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

Ah, a dismissive attitude. That is fine, we don't need to discuss it.

 

 

Very thoughtful of you to also make me feel like shit in the same post.

 

My condolences.

If you don't read then we can't discuss it.

 

You didn't need to raise the issue, or make it personal.

[Villain]

Where do people get this 'God didn't help me so He doesn't exist' from? Are you under the impression that you were made to be served? If the universe is 13.7 billion years old,how does your life of maybe 100 years (if you're lucky) have any significance? Either there is a creator and your life has external meaning (external of your own consciousness and that creator chooses the meaning not yourself) or you came about by chance (accident is probably a better way of describing it as chances are quite slim) and your life has no meaning outside of your conciousness.

[zapatos]

The comparison with Bill is silly- nobody claims that Bill is omnipotent.

In other words, I am wrong because God is omnipotent.

 

It's a traditionally defining trait for Gods that they are omnipotent.

Clinton doesn't end world poverty and suffering because he cant God doesn't because He's a bit of a shit, or He doesn't exist.

But the "bit of a shit" trait there is at odds with the widely asserted characteristic of a "loving" God.

Oh, you mean I'm wrong because God is omnipotent, AND loving.

 

If, as He is usually portrayed, He were a beneficent God, you wouldn't have to ask.

What I am saying is that:

I was in trouble last week

A beneficent, omnipotent God would have helped me (or He wouldn't be beneficent).

He didn't

So He can't exist.

 

If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too.

Yet all the religions say He's not a total bastard.

So He certainly doesn't exist in the way He's portrayed.

Wait, wait. Ok, he's omnipotent, loving, AND beneficent. THAT is why I'm wrong.

 

I have never seen anyone move the goalposts more quickly in my life. If you are unable to be consistent from post to post we can't discuss.

 

You didn't need to raise the issue, or make it personal.

Oh, give me a break. Analogies are no longer acceptable for fear someone, somewhere may take exception? My analogy portrayed your mother as capable, caring, and intelligent. You are the one making it personal and looking for sympathy. Get over yourself.

Edited April 17, 2012 by zapatos

[john5746]

Perhaps God does not go around helping people. I mean, using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people. For example, just plug in 'Bill Clinton' in place of 'God', and you have successfully argued that you don't believe in him either.

 

Poor analogy.

 

We do not provide good deeds as evidence of the existence of specific people. People exist and everyone has had a mother, these are not exotic claims.

 

The op is in regards to justification for believing in a God.

 

One of the most common is that a god has an effect on believer's lives. That's the point of believing, so that you can ask for things or avoid bad things.

 

But, you end up in a circle with something like the following:

 

1) God exists, because he has been good to me and blessed me with so many good things

2) He can do the same for you, if you do x, y, and z

 

so and so did x,y and z but his family suffered terribly and died.

 

3) we cannot understand god's great love.

 

So it is provided as evidence, but means nothing.

 

So, yeah we cannot claim all gods do not exist, but we have a good indication that the god mentioned above doesn't exist.

[zapatos]

Poor analogy.

 

We do not provide good deeds as evidence of the existence of specific people. People exist and everyone has had a mother, these are not exotic claims.

 

The op is in regards to justification for believing in a God.

 

Yes, justification for believing in a God. Which God are we talking about? Seriously Disabled did not mention a specific God, and not all Gods provide good deeds. That is why I mentioned the possibility that God does not perform Good Deeds. It is a bit unreasonable to expect that I would somehow know which version of God he is referencing. Or, for that matter, that you would know which version of God he is referencing.

 

So, yeah we cannot claim all gods do not exist, but we have a good indication that the god mentioned above doesn't exist

Yes, the one mentioned above by you, long after the post by Seriously Disabled that I was addressing. I wasn't addressing your post and the traits you assigned to a God.

Edited April 17, 2012 by zapatos

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Just a happy reminder. Please remember to remain civil to everyone, everyone.


Share and enjoy.

[Villain]

[john5746]

Yes, the one mentioned above by you, long after the post by Seriously Disabled that I was addressing. I wasn't addressing your post and the traits you assigned to a God.

 

that's fine, people can hide behind an abstract god concept that is meaningless and tell people that they cannot claim anything about it. Point taken.

 

But, still your analogy was off base, unless you include a physical god.

 

We don't need to justify the existence of a person with effects they have on the world. Bill Clinton exists, we can see him, touch him, have sex with him.

 

An invisible friend would be a better analogy.

[scourge]

 

That's the point of believing, so that you can ask for things or avoid bad things.

 

 

That shows how little you know about religion and that you dont understand us at all. You don't worship god so that he can help you pay off your mortgage and/or make your enemies fail. You are taking quite a shallow view on our beliefs.

[zapatos]

that's fine, people can hide behind an abstract god concept that is meaningless and tell people that they cannot claim anything about it. Point taken.

I don't know what you are talking about. You can claim anything about God that you want. So can Seriously Disabled.

 

But I don't see how I can comment on what Seriously Disabled claims until he actually claims it. He did not say he was talking about the God of the bible, or Thor. He didn't mention good deeds, omnipotence, loving, or beneficience, so I don't see how I can comment on those traits, or how you can assume that he is talking about those traits.

 

I was only commenting on what he actually said, not what I assumed he was thinking.

 

For example, you seem to be assuming that I am saying that people cannot claim anything about God. I never said or implied any such thing. Maybe it would be better if you just talked about what I actually said, and not what you assume I am thinking.

 

I already agreed with you that there is a good indication that the God with the traits you described probably does not exist.

Edited April 17, 2012 by zapatos

[john5746]

I don't know what you are talking about. You can claim anything about God that you want. So can Seriously Disabled.

 

And then you will compare it to Bill Clinton as if that makes any sense.

 

But I don't see how I can comment on what Seriously Disabled claims until he actually claims it. He did not say he was talking about the God of the bible, or Thor. He didn't mention good deeds, omnipotence, loving, or beneficience, so I don't see how I can comment on those traits, or how you can assume that he is talking about those traits.

 

I can assume he was talking about a caring god, since this is done very often and follows from his logic. Its like assuming Santa Clause wore a red suit. That makes more sense than resorting to Bill Clinton. I'm not arguing about your main point, that there can be a god that isn't caring, just your analogy.

 

For example, you seem to be assuming that I am saying that people cannot claim anything about God. I never said or implied any such thing. Maybe it would be better if you just talked about what I actually said, and not what you assume I am thinking.

 

I already agreed with you that there is a good indication that the God with the traits you described probably does not exist.

 

Yes, you compared the existence of Bill Clinton to the existence of god. If you can do that, then the concept of god makes no sense. Which is probably the case. Dammit, another waste of time.

 

That shows how little you know about religion and that you dont understand us at all. You don't worship god so that he can help you pay off your mortgage and/or make your enemies fail. You are taking quite a shallow view on our beliefs.

 

Think about it some more. Why do people pray? You might pray that a kid doesn't die, which isn't selfish on your part, but you are asking for something.

[John Cuthber]

In other words, I am wrong because God is omnipotent.

 

 

Oh, you mean I'm wrong because God is omnipotent, AND loving.

 

 

Wait, wait. Ok, he's omnipotent, loving, AND beneficent. THAT is why I'm wrong.

 

I have never seen anyone move the goalposts more quickly in my life. If you are unable to be consistent from post to post we can't discuss.

 

 

Oh, give me a break. Analogies are no longer acceptable for fear someone, somewhere may take exception? My analogy portrayed your mother as capable, caring, and intelligent. You are the one making it personal and looking for sympathy. Get over yourself.

 

I didn't move the goal posts. I just left most of them tacit.

Which of those properties do you not think is applicable to the traditional view of God?

(BTW, loving and beneficent are practically identical in this case anyway)

 

My viewpoint is perfectly consistent. If you accept that God has the properties generally ascribed to Him (that's explicitly an assumption BTW) then He doesn't exist.

 

And where on earth did this come from "Analogies are no longer acceptable for fear someone, somewhere may take exception?"

I didn't take exception to your comment and I doubt anyone else here did.

I was simply making a statement of fact. If it upset you that's really rather more your fault than mine. You raised the issue.

 

So, rather than worrying about you seeing the same goalposts from different angles and claiming they moved or discussing my late mother (whose resemblance to a God is pretty superficial, even from my point of view), perhaps you would like to stop trolling and answer the point I raised.

 

Why does God kill babies with earthquakes?

[john5746]

That shows how little you know about religion and that you dont understand us at all. You don't worship god so that he can help you pay off your mortgage and/or make your enemies fail. You are taking quite a shallow view on our beliefs.

 

 

Think about this a little more. Why pray? You can pray for starving kids to be fed or make it to heaven. That isn't selfish or shallow, but it is asking for something.

[zapatos]

And then you will compare it to Bill Clinton as if that makes any sense.

There you go again. Making assumptions about what is going on in my mind instead of addressing what I actually wrote.

 

If you want to argue that it is stupid to compare your version of God to Bill Clinton, then you are going to have to argue with yourself. No one else here has made that claim.

 

Is it really that hard to just read the words and make a comment on those words?

 

I can assume he was talking about a caring god, since this is done very often and follows from his logic. Its like assuming Santa Clause wore a red suit. That makes more sense than resorting to Bill Clinton. I'm not arguing about your main point, that there can be a god that isn't caring, just your analogy.

If you want to make that assumption go right ahead. I have found it to be risky. If he wanted to clarify what he meant after I questioned his logic then he was certainly free to do so.

Yes, you compared the existence of Bill Clinton to the existence of god. If you can do that, then the concept of god makes no sense. Which is probably the case. Dammit, another waste of time.

No, I did not.

 

I tried to show that the logic he used, sans any premises, was faulty and could be used to prove any stupid thing, such as the idea that Bill Clinton does not exist. That is why I said "...using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people."

 

An analogy is not supposed to be a duplicate of the original subject. The purpose is to highlight some aspect of that subject. In this case I used analogy to highlight the fact that his argument, without any premises or clarifications, was faulty.

 

Another waste of time. You got that right.

 

...perhaps you would like to stop trolling and answer the point I raised.

Bite me.

[Villain]

We do not provide good deeds as evidence of the existence of specific people. People exist and everyone has had a mother, these are not exotic claims.

 

The op is in regards to justification for believing in a God.

 

 

I will use what you have written as an example. A mother gives birth to her child, much like a animal gives birth to it's young, much like a plant sheds it's seeds and gives 'birth' to a new plant etc, etc. Why is it then such a strange concept for God to give birth to the universe? There is no need to use good deeds as evidence of creation.

 

Instead of making oneself responsible to a possible God, it is easier for the human mind to dismiss the possibility by trying to forge abstract reasoning to liken God to ponies and fairies, much like the 'God didn't heal my wound or stop someone I knew from dying (something that happens to many people everyday I might add, it's how the world works) therefore He doesn't exist' line of thought. If you are one of the 'we just don't know' people then saying God does or doesn't exist is rather pointless, but there are many religious texts which might not meet all of sciences rules but to dismiss them as not being evidence is opinionated at best. When looking for the truth you generally have to put your own ideas of how the truth should be aside and consider all possibilities. By prescribing what God should or shouldn't be you will only find God if He is exactly what you have prescribed, which considering the limits of the human mind will more than likely fail miserably, but at least you can be a god onto yourself then.

 

[john5746]

I will use what you have written as an example. A mother gives birth to her child, much like a animal gives birth to it's young, much like a plant sheds it's seeds and gives 'birth' to a new plant etc, etc. Why is it then such a strange concept for God to give birth to the universe? There is no need to use good deeds as evidence of creation.

 

So God is Monica Lewinsky. Now the analogy is making some sense.

 

Instead of making oneself responsible to a possible God, it is easier for the human mind to dismiss the possibility by trying to forge abstract reasoning to liken God to ponies and fairies, much like the 'God didn't heal my wound or stop someone I knew from dying (something that happens to many people everyday I might add, it's how the world works) therefore He doesn't exist' line of thought.

 

The concept of God is as abstract as it gets, as evidenced by this forum. I'm not going to "make myself responsible" to an imaginary being. I'm also not going to accept analogies of the existence of abstract concepts(god) to the existence of physical known things.

So, if someone says I don't think Santa exists, since I never got a gift from him and I don't know anyone who got a gift from him - you can't replace Bill Clinton or any other person in that sentence and make an argument.

[Moontanman]

I will use what you have written as an example. A mother gives birth to her child, much like a animal gives birth to it's young, much like a plant sheds it's seeds and gives 'birth' to a new plant etc, etc. Why is it then such a strange concept for God to give birth to the universe?

 

If this is what you are arguing then why does god have to be intelligent at all, why couldn't god be some uber universal creature that just shit's universes and has no idea it does?

 

There is no need to use good deeds as evidence of creation.

 

Unless of course you follow most of the scripture of the worlds major religions... and not just the Abrahamic ones either...

[scourge]

Think about this a little more. Why pray? You can pray for starving kids to be fed or make it to heaven. That isn't selfish or shallow, but it is asking for something.

 

You are looking at it incorrectly, You do not believe so that you can ask for things. Or keep bad things from happening to you are someone else. Its deeper than that. And whether its a "mental disease" or not i do not care. Its sweeter and better than being "sobered up" could ever give me. Considering the fact that i am taken over by a mental disease even as a possibility. If it is please.. Don't cure me.. Please..

[seriously disabled]

What has omnipotence got to do with it? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something.

 

This again proves my point, that God is malevolent. If you see a child drowning in a pool and begging for help and you are quite physically capable but yet you choose not to help the drowning child but instead you let the child die, then this in my opinion makes you not a good person. I think that the same kind of logic can be applied to God.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?

 

I think you guys should read up on the philosophy of 'Cosmicism' and H.P. Lovecraft.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Edited April 17, 2012 by seriously disabled

[scourge]

This again proves my point, that God is malevolent. If you see a child drowning in a pool and begging for help and you are quite physically capable but yet you choose not to help the drowning child but instead you let the child die, then this in my opinion makes you not a good person. I think that the same kind of logic can be applied to God.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?

 

I think you guys should read up on the philosophy of 'Cosmicism' and H.P. Lovecraft.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

http://en.wikipedia....H._P._Lovecraft

 

I disagree that human logic can be applied to god. Though we were created in the image of god (In the view of christians ill say before i face a million foward assertion attacks.) this is just in physical looks. Our mechanics are unlikely to be the same at all. What you think a god should idealy be like is not important. Whatever it is that is done by him is for good reason, In this area of the arguement where we are assuming that god is real in this scenario, You just have to trust that what he does is right and for the better. God would be much, much, much, much more intelligent than us. We likely will not know the reason until it is all done. While this is not the exact same instance here is what it is kind of comparable to.

 

As a very little kid going through school you wish that you did not have to go to school and sometimes wonder why your parents send you to school. Sometimes you think that she sends you to school because she hates you or she wants you to be miserable. Then you grow up and realize that it was only for the better that she sent you to school and you realize back then that your comprehension and understanding was not mature enough to realize why she was sending you to school. As a young child your mother was much more intelligent than you were. Only in this case god will be much more intelligent than you on much larger scales and in this case he always will be. Only you will begin to understand later in life or maybe not until after death you will begin to gain some understanding of why this happened. But as of now most if none of us can understand why he allows this to happen.