6 ms·

If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.

by axotty 12y ago

shawndumas 12y ago
for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined? just for argument's sake...
- hueving 12y ago
  That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
  - anglican1549 12y ago
    Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical. So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
    - hueving 12y ago
      >God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for. >So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
      - anglican1549 12y ago
        But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless. You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.
  - shawndumas 12y ago
    a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion. all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound. so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid? ----- [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundness http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundne...
    - hueving 12y ago
      >so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid? I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving. Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.
      - shawndumas 12y ago
        The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure." My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument. So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?
- anglican1549 12y ago
  It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love. His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.
anglican1549 12y ago
Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God? If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
- axotty 12y ago
  Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too. God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities. If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view. If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
  - anglican1549 12y ago
    "God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him." Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing. "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think? The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow? I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way? "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't? By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?

If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.

by axotty 12y ago

If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.

for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined? just for argument's sake...

hueving 12y ago
That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
- anglican1549 12y ago
  Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical. So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
  - hueving 12y ago
    >God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for. >So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
    - anglican1549 12y ago
      But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless. You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.
- shawndumas 12y ago
  a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion. all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound. so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid? ----- [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundness http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundne...
  - hueving 12y ago
    >so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid? I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving. Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.
    - shawndumas 12y ago
      The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure." My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument. So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?
anglican1549 12y ago
It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love. His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.

anglican1549 12y ago

Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God? If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?

axotty 12y ago
Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too. God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities. If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view. If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
- anglican1549 12y ago
  "God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him." Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing. "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think? The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow? I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way? "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't? By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?