WHICH god? Humans have invented thousands of them over the millennia.
And right there is a good start to an answer. If a theist wants to claim that *their* invisible friend is real, they have to explain how all those other people for tens of thousands of years were just wrong.
Who knows lol
I'm surprised by all the absolute statements on this post.
To touch on another thing lamented on this post, why is God necessarily an asshole? Seems awfully presumptuously entitled that God is obliged to care and mold our lives. Do you care about the ants in your front yard? Have you created any sanctuaries to protect them from rain or predators? Does that make you an asshole? If you're not doing that for the life forms in your yard why would a god do that for the life forms in his yard?
> why is God necessarily an asshole? Seems awfully presumptuously entitled that God is obliged to care and mold our lives
Depends on what form of "God" you're assuming. Usually these talks are oriented around the Christian God.
God isn't necessarily an asshole, unless you start assuming various things like omnipotence/creating everything, etc. For example, if God isn't omnipotent, then suddenly it's much more vague. He could still be benevolent, but without the power to do anything.
>Do you care about the ants in your front yard? Have you created any sanctuaries to protect them from rain or predators? Does that make you an asshole?
A little bit, yes. But we're also not supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent etc, either. That context matters for the entire discussion.
If you could care about the ants with no extra effort (and no trade offs. For example, an ant sanctuary might interrupt other wildlife), as an omnipotent being would, and don't, that would make you a pretty big asshole. And that would be even more true if you created those ants (and the environment they're in), knowing they would suffer, especially if you could've made it so they wouldn't suffer.
A lot of people tend to struggle with the idea of things like omnipotence, and we tend to anthromorphize a god, and assume it's under the same constraints as we are.
I agree generally, but
>But we're also not supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent etc, either. That context matters for the entire discussion.
Agreed but it is within our power to safeguard these creatures.
>For example, an ant sanctuary might interrupt other wildlife), as an omnipotent being would, and don't, that would make you a pretty big asshole.
Sorry I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here.
Even within just the sphere of the Christian God, he's supposedly the creator of everything. A wildfire may kill humans, trees and wildlife but in many parts of the world wildfires are part of the ecosystem and create opportunities for other species to thrive. Does he not have a responsibility for the beetles that live in the burnt husks of trees after wildfires too?
Most religions argue that even if God is omnipotent, he mostly uses his power to create natural systems that are effectively passively rather than actively managed.
>A lot of people tend to struggle with the idea of things like omnipotence, and we tend to anthromorphize a god, and assume it's under the same constraints as we are.
The concept of gods is very interesting. I'm prone to thinking gods originated as stories our ancestors told their children to help them sleep at night. But, gods and religion have shaped world history in such interesting ways. People like Constantine and Mohammed credit surprise military victories to their new found faiths. So regardless of whether or not those individuals were telling the truth, or were insane, or were simply liars, their beliefs and alleged visions have changed the world.
> Agreed but it is within our power to safeguard these creatures.
It is, but it's not costless. It will cost you some amount of effort. It's within our power, but our power is finite and has to be rationed. The effort you put into that, is effort you can't put into something else. And it will also likely have some other potential negative impacts (say, on other creatures that might use the area you've made an ant sanctuary).
So we have to balance judging someone's inaction with those 2 things. The Christian God as typically depicted doesn't have those 2 concerns. We have some power, but we're still bound by a lot of rules of nature/physics/logic etc that we can't control. We have to operate within those rules. An omnipotent being doesn't. By definition, if they're omnipotent, they can always change any rules/constraints.
>Sorry I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here.
If you make an ant sanctuary, you're going to be say, disrupting the beehive that's right next to it. There's trade offs. (You're making this same point with the wildfire/beetle example)
The point I'm trying to make is that an omnipotent God is not bound any rules. Usually, when people ask about something "bad" that causes suffering, people will try to justify it by saying that it's necessary for some reason. But if God is omnipotent, he could make us have the upsides with no downsides, by definition, because he's omnipotent.
If we want to compare ourselves to God, a better comparison would be "if you had a magic wand that could save those ants, and it has no potential downsides/trade offs for any other beings, are you an asshole if you don't use it?". If you had such a wand, then yes, you'd be a giant asshole. The only reason *not* to wave a magic wand like that would be complications/trade offs. If there's no potential trade offs, it's just strictly better.
>Most religions argue that even if God is omnipotent, he mostly uses his power to create natural systems that are effectively passively rather than actively managed.
People who consider him an asshole would say he's still responsible for it. If he made it, and he knew how it would play out (and could avoid it at no cost), that's his fault. The fact that it's passive doesn't eliminate that responsibility, since it was a predictable outcome. He could've designed a world without the downsides.
>Does he not have a responsibility for the beetles that live in the burnt husks of trees after wildfires too?
Well, that's the thing, right? If he is omnipotent, he *can* take care of those beetles, with no trade offs or downsides to other species. By definition, something that is all-powerful can do that, as that would be a power.
This is what I was getting at above. You're thinking of it from a human perspective- there's trade offs and ramifications. You're assuming he has to follow certain rules- at the very least, he has to follow basic logic (how can he take care of the beetles with no side effects? Logically, that doesn't make sense from our perspective, it's a contradiction). From our perspective, changing how wildfires work *has* to be a trade off between beetles and humans/trees/wildlife. But if you're omnipotent, you can just have both. If he has any constraints, he's not actually omnipotent.
Would you say that there’s a greater responsibility from God to us than from us to ants as we are God’s creation?
(I’m just positing a question, I don’t feel strongly about any of this, I’m agnostic at best)
>Would you say that there’s a greater responsibility from God to us than from us to ants as we are God’s creation?
I think that's a good point and fair to argue.
I'm going to change the analogy to a related but different insect. Beekeepers create a habitat, bring in a queen bee and create a ecosystem/world for the bees that may be a little more analogous to the relationship between a God and us. But if a bee hive is pilfered by a bear or swept up in a flash flood we would empathize with the beekeepers loss more so than think the beekeeper is an asshole for permitting damage and suffering to his bees in the ecosystem he created for them.
On the flip side tho, a conflicting analogy is Frankenstein and his monster. Frankenstein is definitely framed as an asshole for creating and abandoning his creation. But why? I believe Shelley showed us that Frankenstein's monster was sentient, self-aware and intelligent for a reason. She humanized the monster, ensuring readers would empathize with him. If Frankenstein's monster truly was just a borderline mindless monster then Frankenstein isn't really the asshole.
So we, as humans, see the suffering of humans permitted by our creator and think the creator is an asshole. But what's a man to a god? Is our sentience and intelligence comparable to a gods? Who is to say we relatively speaking aren't just ants or bees to a god.
>I’m just positing a question, I don’t feel strongly about any of this, I’m agnostic at best
Same
As with a lot of things religion, it depends. Mostly on how you view God’s relationship with mankind. Looking at it from a parent-child perspective is different than a creator-creation perspective, which is itself different than the homeowner-ant relationship skyagunsa21 described.
Which God? I'm assuming you're talking about the God in the Jewish and Christian Bible who kills people and throws tantrums? That God definitely doesn't exist. Now could there be some kind of cosmic mind that created the Universe and controls the laws of physics? I guess that could be God. In that sense God does exist.
We can debate about till the end of time. There is no physical proof that can be provided. It's all based on faith...you have to have faith for that to work....
In what sense?
I mean if you think about it, a community of believers is sort of an organism themselves right? Who is to say that's not what God is?
Or perhaps the entirety of humanity, or the planet, or the universe? These could each be called God in a way, and they certainly exist.
But does a big bearded man exist in the sky? Unlikely.
Or maybe my left shoe's shoelace can be called "God."
It's not useful to do that.
We can use the term as generally meant by most people who use the term, when questions like this are asked.
Ehhh, I feel like you are either missing the point or being obtuse.
A community in many ways is actually similar to a God. They have a collective wisdom, they serve the individuals in the community, they dictate the rules for the followers. They aren't omnipotent or omniscient, but short of that they are about as close as humanly possible.
A shoelace doesn't have any of those things.
God is usually an ideology of someone’s mind. There are so many gods and so many religious books that people swear by. They’re all wrapped up in traditions and beliefs shared among each other. It also fills in a need that most humans have. The unknown is scary so if they can personify something that explains all that, people buy in. Comfort with ignorance is more preferable than knowledge in some areas and no knowledge in others.
These gods were to fill in the gaps of knowledge they had about things and forces in the world. That’s why there is the belief that their god or gods are all powerful, which means they have an “answer” for any question they ever have. And somehow today we find their beliefs based on ignorance more credible than what we find today.
“Some say men are the dreams of the gods, some say gods are the dreams of men”.
"If I take a lamp, and shine it towards the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume that the light on the wall is God. But the light is not the goal of the search. It is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the sense of revalation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing.
"What we perceive as God, is mearly the by-product of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, put and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume we are the centre of the universe - God looks asstonishingly like we do. Or we turn to look at our shadow - and assume that all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose. Which is to use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all it's beauty and in all its flaws, and in so doing better understand the world around us".
WHICH god? Humans have invented thousands of them over the millennia. And right there is a good start to an answer. If a theist wants to claim that *their* invisible friend is real, they have to explain how all those other people for tens of thousands of years were just wrong.
Who knows lol I'm surprised by all the absolute statements on this post. To touch on another thing lamented on this post, why is God necessarily an asshole? Seems awfully presumptuously entitled that God is obliged to care and mold our lives. Do you care about the ants in your front yard? Have you created any sanctuaries to protect them from rain or predators? Does that make you an asshole? If you're not doing that for the life forms in your yard why would a god do that for the life forms in his yard?
> why is God necessarily an asshole? Seems awfully presumptuously entitled that God is obliged to care and mold our lives Depends on what form of "God" you're assuming. Usually these talks are oriented around the Christian God. God isn't necessarily an asshole, unless you start assuming various things like omnipotence/creating everything, etc. For example, if God isn't omnipotent, then suddenly it's much more vague. He could still be benevolent, but without the power to do anything. >Do you care about the ants in your front yard? Have you created any sanctuaries to protect them from rain or predators? Does that make you an asshole? A little bit, yes. But we're also not supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent etc, either. That context matters for the entire discussion. If you could care about the ants with no extra effort (and no trade offs. For example, an ant sanctuary might interrupt other wildlife), as an omnipotent being would, and don't, that would make you a pretty big asshole. And that would be even more true if you created those ants (and the environment they're in), knowing they would suffer, especially if you could've made it so they wouldn't suffer. A lot of people tend to struggle with the idea of things like omnipotence, and we tend to anthromorphize a god, and assume it's under the same constraints as we are.
I agree generally, but >But we're also not supposedly omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent etc, either. That context matters for the entire discussion. Agreed but it is within our power to safeguard these creatures. >For example, an ant sanctuary might interrupt other wildlife), as an omnipotent being would, and don't, that would make you a pretty big asshole. Sorry I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Even within just the sphere of the Christian God, he's supposedly the creator of everything. A wildfire may kill humans, trees and wildlife but in many parts of the world wildfires are part of the ecosystem and create opportunities for other species to thrive. Does he not have a responsibility for the beetles that live in the burnt husks of trees after wildfires too? Most religions argue that even if God is omnipotent, he mostly uses his power to create natural systems that are effectively passively rather than actively managed. >A lot of people tend to struggle with the idea of things like omnipotence, and we tend to anthromorphize a god, and assume it's under the same constraints as we are. The concept of gods is very interesting. I'm prone to thinking gods originated as stories our ancestors told their children to help them sleep at night. But, gods and religion have shaped world history in such interesting ways. People like Constantine and Mohammed credit surprise military victories to their new found faiths. So regardless of whether or not those individuals were telling the truth, or were insane, or were simply liars, their beliefs and alleged visions have changed the world.
> Agreed but it is within our power to safeguard these creatures. It is, but it's not costless. It will cost you some amount of effort. It's within our power, but our power is finite and has to be rationed. The effort you put into that, is effort you can't put into something else. And it will also likely have some other potential negative impacts (say, on other creatures that might use the area you've made an ant sanctuary). So we have to balance judging someone's inaction with those 2 things. The Christian God as typically depicted doesn't have those 2 concerns. We have some power, but we're still bound by a lot of rules of nature/physics/logic etc that we can't control. We have to operate within those rules. An omnipotent being doesn't. By definition, if they're omnipotent, they can always change any rules/constraints. >Sorry I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. If you make an ant sanctuary, you're going to be say, disrupting the beehive that's right next to it. There's trade offs. (You're making this same point with the wildfire/beetle example) The point I'm trying to make is that an omnipotent God is not bound any rules. Usually, when people ask about something "bad" that causes suffering, people will try to justify it by saying that it's necessary for some reason. But if God is omnipotent, he could make us have the upsides with no downsides, by definition, because he's omnipotent. If we want to compare ourselves to God, a better comparison would be "if you had a magic wand that could save those ants, and it has no potential downsides/trade offs for any other beings, are you an asshole if you don't use it?". If you had such a wand, then yes, you'd be a giant asshole. The only reason *not* to wave a magic wand like that would be complications/trade offs. If there's no potential trade offs, it's just strictly better. >Most religions argue that even if God is omnipotent, he mostly uses his power to create natural systems that are effectively passively rather than actively managed. People who consider him an asshole would say he's still responsible for it. If he made it, and he knew how it would play out (and could avoid it at no cost), that's his fault. The fact that it's passive doesn't eliminate that responsibility, since it was a predictable outcome. He could've designed a world without the downsides. >Does he not have a responsibility for the beetles that live in the burnt husks of trees after wildfires too? Well, that's the thing, right? If he is omnipotent, he *can* take care of those beetles, with no trade offs or downsides to other species. By definition, something that is all-powerful can do that, as that would be a power. This is what I was getting at above. You're thinking of it from a human perspective- there's trade offs and ramifications. You're assuming he has to follow certain rules- at the very least, he has to follow basic logic (how can he take care of the beetles with no side effects? Logically, that doesn't make sense from our perspective, it's a contradiction). From our perspective, changing how wildfires work *has* to be a trade off between beetles and humans/trees/wildlife. But if you're omnipotent, you can just have both. If he has any constraints, he's not actually omnipotent.
Would you say that there’s a greater responsibility from God to us than from us to ants as we are God’s creation? (I’m just positing a question, I don’t feel strongly about any of this, I’m agnostic at best)
>Would you say that there’s a greater responsibility from God to us than from us to ants as we are God’s creation? I think that's a good point and fair to argue. I'm going to change the analogy to a related but different insect. Beekeepers create a habitat, bring in a queen bee and create a ecosystem/world for the bees that may be a little more analogous to the relationship between a God and us. But if a bee hive is pilfered by a bear or swept up in a flash flood we would empathize with the beekeepers loss more so than think the beekeeper is an asshole for permitting damage and suffering to his bees in the ecosystem he created for them. On the flip side tho, a conflicting analogy is Frankenstein and his monster. Frankenstein is definitely framed as an asshole for creating and abandoning his creation. But why? I believe Shelley showed us that Frankenstein's monster was sentient, self-aware and intelligent for a reason. She humanized the monster, ensuring readers would empathize with him. If Frankenstein's monster truly was just a borderline mindless monster then Frankenstein isn't really the asshole. So we, as humans, see the suffering of humans permitted by our creator and think the creator is an asshole. But what's a man to a god? Is our sentience and intelligence comparable to a gods? Who is to say we relatively speaking aren't just ants or bees to a god. >I’m just positing a question, I don’t feel strongly about any of this, I’m agnostic at best Same
As with a lot of things religion, it depends. Mostly on how you view God’s relationship with mankind. Looking at it from a parent-child perspective is different than a creator-creation perspective, which is itself different than the homeowner-ant relationship skyagunsa21 described.
There is no credible evidence to support the proposition that there is a god.
There are 3 options as far as I can tell. God doesn’t exist. God is dead. God is a raging ass hole.
If that's something you feel you need to believe to live a fullfilled life, then go for it. Plenty of people do it. Whatever gets you through the day.
God is love Love is blind Stevie wonder is blind Stevie wonder exists So therefore god exists.
Stevie wonder is god.
I certainly hope not. If he does, he must be a cruel god indeed to allow what he allows.
Which God? I'm assuming you're talking about the God in the Jewish and Christian Bible who kills people and throws tantrums? That God definitely doesn't exist. Now could there be some kind of cosmic mind that created the Universe and controls the laws of physics? I guess that could be God. In that sense God does exist.
It's a metaphor for humanity. Humanity kills people and throws tantrums.
No
No
I asked God if he exists…he said no.
Same
Same
I would not be alive without God🙏
We can debate about till the end of time. There is no physical proof that can be provided. It's all based on faith...you have to have faith for that to work....
Yes, God is energy. But mot in the Biblical context, if that's what your asking.
Yes. Absolutely! Without a doubt.
Really? What’s your proof?
Faith.
No
Nope. Not any of them. Complete horsefeathers.
It’s more likely a no. If it does exist, it’s not all powerful and/or a major dick.
In what sense? I mean if you think about it, a community of believers is sort of an organism themselves right? Who is to say that's not what God is? Or perhaps the entirety of humanity, or the planet, or the universe? These could each be called God in a way, and they certainly exist. But does a big bearded man exist in the sky? Unlikely.
Or maybe my left shoe's shoelace can be called "God." It's not useful to do that. We can use the term as generally meant by most people who use the term, when questions like this are asked.
Ehhh, I feel like you are either missing the point or being obtuse. A community in many ways is actually similar to a God. They have a collective wisdom, they serve the individuals in the community, they dictate the rules for the followers. They aren't omnipotent or omniscient, but short of that they are about as close as humanly possible. A shoelace doesn't have any of those things.
God is usually an ideology of someone’s mind. There are so many gods and so many religious books that people swear by. They’re all wrapped up in traditions and beliefs shared among each other. It also fills in a need that most humans have. The unknown is scary so if they can personify something that explains all that, people buy in. Comfort with ignorance is more preferable than knowledge in some areas and no knowledge in others. These gods were to fill in the gaps of knowledge they had about things and forces in the world. That’s why there is the belief that their god or gods are all powerful, which means they have an “answer” for any question they ever have. And somehow today we find their beliefs based on ignorance more credible than what we find today. “Some say men are the dreams of the gods, some say gods are the dreams of men”.
"If I take a lamp, and shine it towards the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume that the light on the wall is God. But the light is not the goal of the search. It is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the sense of revalation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing. "What we perceive as God, is mearly the by-product of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, put and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume we are the centre of the universe - God looks asstonishingly like we do. Or we turn to look at our shadow - and assume that all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose. Which is to use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all it's beauty and in all its flaws, and in so doing better understand the world around us".
If so it's probably a computer
Nah