Because of the horrible things that he said and all the horrible things his followers have done and continue to do
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Good god?
There's a question that I've asked many a theist and never gotten an actual answer to, so maybe one of the theistic readers here can answer it. Here it is:
How do you know that god is good?
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Because he said so of course :p Who are we puny humans to question his words :p He said himself he loves us...why shouldn't we trust him :) Oh wait, you wrote quite a few posts why we shouldn't :)
We know God is good because the Bible tells us so. We know the Bible is right because it says that it's right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about ...
Oops! sorry. I got into circular resoning somehow. I gotta stop doing that.
As a theologian, I take issue with the current understanding of "good."
The Jewish writers wrote "good" not in the understanding of 21st Century definition but in an understanding that whatever God made and caused to happen is "good."
Spartans used to leave deformed children and the infirm on a hillside to be killed by wild beasts. They declared this action "good." We certainly would not.
You mentioned in one of your opening topics that a Muslim kills his daughter out of honor killing. Muslims would state that this action is "good." We would not.
For thousands of years, people have been killing people in wars. The victors declared that their actions were "good." Most of us would disagree.
Our modern notion of "good" must have its counterpart "bad." We have determined (and legislated) what we feel is "good" and what is "bad." Our notion of "good" and "bad" cannot be applied to God.
Why? Because everytime we try to attach a label of "good" or "bad" on something we feel God did turns out that the ation was "good."
A baby dies a few days old, and an old man lives to be a ripe old age of a 100. We blame God for being "bad" when the baby died, because we have this one-sided opinion that babies should live long lives. We forget that we have an extremely myopic view of life, that the few days of life on Earth was all that was needed for the baby to move on. The baby did not need to suffer an entire lifetime, and that is "good."
Which brings up one point alluded to above. We all want to blame God for everything, when in reality God does nothing.
The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true. He created a universe, gave it a whole bunch of laws that we limited humans have barely begun to understand. These laws are in place here on the Earth, and when these laws act normally, we then want to look at God and ask: "What the hell did you do that for?"
God can rightly acclaim: "I didn't do anything. But it was good."
"Ya just killed 350,000 people!"
"No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives. A natural law of physics occurred. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, maybe they were in the right place at the right time so I could take them home. You figure it out."
"The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true.
'Ya just killed 350,000 people!'
'No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives.'"
Now Wallis, your words are a relief. There are a few people that have really screwed me financially and profressionally. Since they chose to do this, I can now, without a guily conscience, go out, get a shotgun, and take care of them.
In seriousness, that was perhaps the greatest double-speak that I have yet observed here on this blog.
Now I realize why my life has been such a wreak without my attempts to make it so. God created these laws, laws that conflict with the existance of mankind within a common environment, and consequently, as a result, "bad" things alway happen to "good" people.
Or is it actually that "bad" things are happening to "bad" people because they have pissed God off and he is therefore smiting them?
Wallis, "The Jewish writers wrote "good" not in the understanding of 21st Century definition but in an understanding that whatever God made and caused to happen is "good.""
So, the wanton genocides caused by god are good? If you wish to define whatever god does/decides to do/orders as "good" then you're gored by Euthyphro's dilemma, in that when god orders murder or rape, it is "good". We have concepts, as humans, of what good is and god certainly does not fit those concepts.
"Our notion of "good" and "bad" cannot be applied to God."
Then how can you judge that god is good in our modern understanding, or are you rejecting that notion? If it is simply a self-referential definition of "good" then we have no need for it and we may as well say that god's actions are "flubarb" or any other made-up word. My dictionary, however, says that the word "good" means morally excellent, righteous, etc. god surely does not fulfill these definitions.
"Why? Because everytime we try to attach a label of "good" or "bad" on something we feel God did turns out that the ation was "good.""
And, what was good about the tsunami that you referenced? You can't say. All you can do is try to paint the bulls-eye around where the arrow landed. It's called counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
"A baby dies a few days old, and an old man lives to be a ripe old age of a 100. We blame God for being "bad" when the baby died, because we have this one-sided opinion that babies should live long lives. We forget that we have an extremely myopic view of life, that the few days of life on Earth was all that was needed for the baby to move on. The baby did not need to suffer an entire lifetime, and that is "good.""
This is a prime example of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. When god treats us all differently, he is being inherently unfair. The baby that gets to go to heaven after living for less than an hour does not have to suffer as you put it, while god causes the man who lives to 100 to suffer? This is good to you?
"The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true. He created a universe, gave it a whole bunch of laws that we limited humans have barely begun to understand."
OK, so god created a universe with physical laws that cause tsunamis to happen that will wipe out thousands of people and you can claim with a straight face that god had nothing to do with it? Sorry, but that's some pretty weak reasoning. If god created the universe and is omni-max then everything is the fault of god, whether good or bad. So, when people get killed in natural disasters it IS god's fault, you can't deny that, else you are denying that god is omni-max or that god had knowledge when he set up the universe that these things would happen.
"No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives. A natural law of physics occurred. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, maybe they were in the right place at the right time so I could take them home. You figure it out."
And, here you paint a god that is indifferent to our plights and struggles - so much for the personal, caring god that supposedly loves us, right?
Very good counterpoints. However, it seems that I have not made myself clear. That's okay. I like to expand the dialogue.
gtc went to the dictionary and defined the word "good." That's well and good. But you missed the point when I stated that the Jewish writers were not using a dictionary, and they were not defining God in terms of what they thought was "good" and "bad."
gtc: you stated that when people are killed in natural disasters, it is God's fault. This is partially correct, but mostly incorrect.
In modern society, if you leave an extension cord on the floor and a thief trips over it while breaking into your house, you are partially responsible for that thief's injury. You should not have left the extension cord out for him to trip over in the first place. But the thief made a choice to enter your house, and the fact that he tripped over your extension cord is mostly his fault. He made the choice and suffered the consequence.
You plainly make a case that this life sucks, and it is all God's fault. Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing.
Too many people want to blame God for everything. That's human nature. We refuse to accept that all the blame lies squarely on our shoulders.
God is loving and caring. That's why he is trying to kill us and take us back to him as quickly as he can. Does that sound weird to you? It should, because too many so-called Christian churches preach that "if you love God, God will bountifully enrich your lives." The Christ's message (and you can include Buddha's teachings here) was that you are going to die. You are going to suffer a hell of a lot before you get out of jail. Believing in the Christ or God or Buddha or your favorite rock/crystal/whatever is not going to make this very short life a "heaven."
God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next.
wallis said: "God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next."
So how did the early jews define "god cares"? Does this not have its apparent meaning? Jesus said not to worry, that even the birds are taken care of. Yet, millions in Africa have died from starvation; many people even in this country are without basic needs.
I don't think god cares, I have experienced him as a mean, ruthless, unloving, and vindictive being.
I feel your pain, Anonymous. It does seem that God does not care because we only have the "here and now."
We all are too wrapped up in trying to put food on the table, enjoy a good life, etc. to really give a "care" about what lies outside our reality.
And, we get mighty frustrated when things "bad" happen: the expected outcome of all our energies does not materialize.
I try to look at life as a string of "supposed to"'s. The reason why I exist here is not so much as to put on an entertaining show for God but to learn something. What am I supposed to learn? Well, that is another huge question.
I have had my share of problems in life: I'm digging myself out of my fourth hole. Of course, I cannot equate my troubles with many others who are worse off, but I have felt screwed many times.
For me, it is too easy to turn to God and complain why he "hates" me. Rather, I can see (and only I can see because I am the only one living my life) where he is supporting me through all of these "supposed to"'s.
When I close my eyes for the final time, all I have left is trust and belief that God will take care of me into the after-life.
I know that this all sounds illogical, but that is the definition of faith: believing when everything else says you're nuts to believe. The proof exists only for me: that when I look back over my life, I see where God has been caring and taking care of me. The problem is: no one can get into my head and feel and experience what I have to have an understanding of why I believe and from what point Im cming from.
Wallis, "gtc went to the dictionary and defined the word "good." That's well and good. But you missed the point when I stated that the Jewish writers were not using a dictionary, and they were not defining God in terms of what they thought was "good" and "bad.""
Really, your short answer to the OP is that either you can't know that god is good or that you simply define it that way, which destroys the common notion of the word.
"gtc: you stated that when people are killed in natural disasters, it is God's fault. This is partially correct, but mostly incorrect."
Actually it is all god's fault. How anything can happen that is not 100% caused by an omni-max deity is not logically possible.
"You plainly make a case that this life sucks, and it is all God's fault. Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing."
Actually, I love life. I'm making the case that god is unjust, unloving, and not moral.
And, there's no reason for god to make life suck. If it is true that we can only learn when life sucks, then it is because god created us that way. He very well could have created us without this flaw.
"Too many people want to blame God for everything. That's human nature. We refuse to accept that all the blame lies squarely on our shoulders."
I am not to blame for god creating hell. I am not to blame for being created "sinful." I am not to blame for Adam and Eve's supposed crimes. I am not to blame for being human. I am not to blame for god not giving us evidence of his existence. Need I go on?
"God is loving and caring."
He loves us so much that he'll send us to hell. Beautiful.
And, let's get something straight here. You can't simultaneously argue that you can't judge god because you can't really know about god since he is so far above us, but then turn around and claim that you can know that god loves us and cares about us. How can you possibly know that based on your previous arguments? Make up your mind.
"The Christ's message (and you can include Buddha's teachings here) was that you are going to die. You are going to suffer a hell of a lot before you get out of jail."
Yes, because god loves us so much he's decided that we need to suffer and die. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
"God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next."
If you mean "take care of" as in throw into a pit of fire and torment for eternity, then I'd hate to see what god does when he doesn't care or isn't feeling loving.
"We all are too wrapped up in trying to put food on the table, enjoy a good life, etc. to really give a "care" about what lies outside our reality."
Yes, and god cares, which is why he makes us toil and work to have to put food on our tables? How many contradictory notions can you fit into 2 comments I wonder?
"The reason why I exist here is not so much as to put on an entertaining show for God but to learn something."
And, you evidence for this is probably as non-existent as your evidence for god, right?
"Rather, I can see (and only I can see because I am the only one living my life) where he is supporting me through all of these "supposed to"'s."
So, he puts you there and he supports you? Wouldn't it be better to simply support you? Of course, you will claim that all these "evils" are squarely your fault. Do you know what battered spouse syndrome is? It's when one spouse will beat the other followed by a loving period. The spouse being beat will be told that it is his/her own fault, and he/she will internalize it and agree that if they just didn't mess up, the other person wouldn't have to beat them. Does this sound familiar to your life?
"When I close my eyes for the final time, all I have left is trust and belief that God will take care of me into the after-life."
And your evidence for this is?
"I know that this all sounds illogical..."
That's because it is. Plain and simply put, it is. You have admitted that you have no evidence for god, yet you believe in him? Do you similarly believe in the FSM, the celestial teapot, invisible, pink unicorns, and fuhghtyheser? (Note the last word is just made up. I just made up that concept, but you have just as much evidence for it as you do for your god, so you may as well believe that it is something that you can believe in.)
"The proof exists only for me: that when I look back over my life, I see where God has been caring and taking care of me. The problem is: no one can get into my head and feel and experience what I have to have an understanding of why I believe and from what point Im cming from."
Um, no that's not proof. It's not even evidence. It's confirmation bias with begging the question with a little bit of counting the hits and ignoring the misses thrown in for good measure.
I see that we are talking in circular arguments, and we are not getting anywhere.
You demand concrete proof. You will not get concrete proof.
You insist on there being a "hell." There is no hell.
You refuse the argument that God exists in all of the nonsense. You will not confirm the existence of nonsense. Yet, nonsense exists.
Actually, I am kind of proud of you in this respect: you have (for your own reasons) rejected the existence of God because he does not exist in words and dogma and ritual. You have taken your first real step in finding out what God is all about.
I have many atheists as friends, but none of them are as unhappy as you, and that's a pity. They do not "run around" and decry all aspects of religion as if they are angry hornets upsetting their lives.
Every atheist hopes. Would you deny the existence of hope? Give me proof that hope exists. I know you hope for something. Would I not be wrong for telling you that what you hope for is ridiculous in the same vein/disdain that you apply to people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?
>people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?<
Wallace, what would "proof" be within a particular frame of reference?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word proof. You're willing to twist the meaning of any word in order to keep alive your belief in a purely imaginary god.
"I know that this all sounds illogical, but that is the definition of faith: believing when everything else says you're nuts to believe.
Yes, it does sound illogical, so why should we put any faith in your beliefs? Tell me, if you would, do you have any other illogical beliefs you can share with us? Or are you only illogical when it comes to your religious beliefs?
You don't think the moon is made of cheese, do you? Do you believe water runs uphill? Do you think fairies create electricity?
No, in most ways, you think logically. When it comes to something you don't understand - the origin of the universe - and when it comes to something you are afraid of - dying - you can only think illogically. Pretty pathetic.
>The proof exists only for me"<
Again, your understanding of the meaning of the word "proof" is obviously not the same as it is for the rest of us. You twist it to mean what you want it to mean, so that you can continue to believe in an imaginary god.
Once you understand there is no god, everything begins to make sense. For you, though, everything that's important - why we exist, why thousands can die in cataclysmic events, etc. - is illogical, by your own admission.
So why are you here, admitting to us that you are illogical, telling us that only you can understand your own weird thoughts?
It will all make sense to you when you admit the truth: there is no god.
Wallis, "You demand concrete proof. You will not get concrete proof."
I demand some type of evidence. You've admitted that none is forthcoming. If you have no evidence to supply then it is highly irrational for you to believe in this deity. If you think it is rational, then you should also believe in the FSM, the celestial teapot, and anything else I can conjure up sans evidence.
"You insist on there being a "hell." There is no hell."
According to the only purported source for knowing and understanding your deity, there is a hell. Even if no hell, exists, however, my arguments stand intact.
"You refuse the argument that God exists in all of the nonsense. You will not confirm the existence of nonsense. Yet, nonsense exists."
Is this supposed to be a coherent argument for god? I admit it, nonsense does exist, as your argument clearly shows...being that it is nothing but nonsense. Yet, it still does not argue for god, and even if it did it would be quite the Pyrrhic victory seeing as how you are arguing for a god of nonsense.
"Actually, I am kind of proud of you in this respect: you have (for your own reasons) rejected the existence of God because he does not exist in words and dogma and ritual. You have taken your first real step in finding out what God is all about."
Freedom is slavery, right?
"I have many atheists as friends, but none of them are as unhappy as you, and that's a pity."
Thank you for your pop psychology, but who said I'm unhappy?
"They do not "run around" and decry all aspects of religion as if they are angry hornets upsetting their lives."
And, this isn't my day job, so what? I'm not allowed to have a hobby?
"Every atheist hopes. Would you deny the existence of hope? Give me proof that hope exists."
Um, you just supplied it. Yes, everyone has hopes, this has nothing to do with the existence of god.
"I know you hope for something. Would I not be wrong for telling you that what you hope for is ridiculous in the same vein/disdain that you apply to people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?"
Considering that it's not provable "within their own frames of reference" it's not a valid analogy. Nevertheless, I should think that the things that I believe and hope for should be held up to scrutiny to see if they actually accord with reality. I can hope to be able to jump over a 10 story building in a single bound unaided, but seeing as how that is impossible, I see no reason for someone to not call me out on that. But, let's look at the argument you are really making here. You are basically arguing for god by saying that I shouldn't be mean to others by pointing out the illogical and irrational beliefs they hold. Even if it were true that I should not be pointing out their beliefs are illogical and irrational, that does nothing to prove that god exists.
Your example of "hope" illustrates quite clearly that you do understand the meaning of hope.
You cannot prove hope, love, anger, hate, or any feelings exist.
You cannot even prove that you exist.
Sure, you can show manifestations of the above, but these do not qualify as empirical proof.
It is universally agreed that the statement "I think; therefore I am" is not empirical proof that you, indeed, do exist.
All of your plaintiff arguments, rants, and complaints against God, specifically the Christian God (although why you singularly pick him among all the other views of God is beyond me).
You state that God created a Hell. Interesting that you pick a more modern version of Hell, a Western version, and completely ignore the Eastern concept of Hell.
You state that God is responsible for everything, although you enjoy doting on all the bad things and purposely skip over the good things.
These arguments and more are existential proof, given by your own hand that God exists. Congratulations.
Also, it is worthy to note that you like to pick on the Bible and ignore a cornucopia of scriptures throughout the world.
You decry theologians, yet you have no understanding of theology (and it is apparent that you have no desire to understand theology).
You lump Christians into one group. This is called stereotyping and is typical of bigotted thinking.
So, I leave you two barren wombs to commiserate in unproductive and low-esteem lives, because this dickhead could not find any eggs to germinate.
Also, I would suggest you all take a course in logic, because thus far you have not presented any logical arguments here.
Early in the discussion the entirety of your viewpoint wasn't clear and I think we all assumed that you were another evangelical zombie. Was gct applying a brand of logic that was intended for that type of thread-poster? I think so.
"And for the record, I am Buddhist."
Late in the discussion, you've _finally_ clarified your position as, -Buddhism philosophy... terrific! Will you please clarify your position on Christian religion? You do not hold the usual religious doctrines and so you'll need to clarify yourself unless your goal is to create confusion. What is the main objective of your discussion throughout this blog?
"[...] you have no understanding of theology [...]"
Here it is, Wallis: In the current world, only a few _real_ 'theologians' exist. The word has been redefined by, and used by, people who want the world to adopt their emotionally-driven perspectives. Obviously. gct assumes that colloquial definition of the word.
Injecting strict formal definition into that word is an example of how you are just muddying the waters here. What is the point of this? You understand the messages that gct is communicating. Start receiving the messages in the way they were meant to be received so that we can move the discussion forward.
You keep introducing various side-arguments ... "you have no understanding of theology"... "take a course in logic" ... "two barren wombs" ... What are you talking about? You haven't explained any of this. What is the point of writing this if you won't explain what the thinking is behind these statements?
What we should do, Wallis, is instead of saying “Here's YOUR opinion, here is another opinion, take a logic class” what you should do is start to analyse whether what gct wrote, is right or wrong. Show us your analysis. You're being way too overly vague and evasive and I don't see any real rebuttal or analysis from you.
Do you have anything that says that gct is wrong (that god is specifically 'good')? Surely, if you are a theologian, you've thought about it and you've figured something out that we haven't. Let's hear about it. Lets prove gct wrong, lets stop using vague language and arguments and lets start nailing the issue down and lets start constructing things with _real_ logic. You wrote that gct should take a logic class, well show us how its done because we are ready at any time to start seeing it.
"Your example of "hope" illustrates quite clearly that you do understand the meaning of hope.
You cannot prove hope, love, anger, hate, or any feelings exist.
You cannot even prove that you exist.
Sure, you can show manifestations of the above, but these do not qualify as empirical proof.
It is universally agreed that the statement "I think; therefore I am" is not empirical proof that you, indeed, do exist."
You could continue zooming out and abstracting things and endlessly heaping meta-argument upon meta-argument. What is your point? Please prove that god is good in a way that satisfies the layer of thought in which we _do_ exist.
Man, it's been a little while since I have been here and I am reminded by Wallis why I.........hold on one second...............Sorry, I just finished beating the shit out of my one month old, you see, life sucks, and before that little child can get out of jail....... "Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing"
You see she needs to learn something, and if she dies, well she will go to heaven & be with god and bla, bla bla.
Wallis, your logic is based on the feeling that your life sucks and suicide is not an option, even though that will get you to god much faster. Since you feel this way, there has to be hope because that is all that keeps you going, but why have hope on earth when you can just check out and go be with god? Understand that I am not telling you to commit suicide, just pointing out that your logic is why "life sucks". I will say this, if this is your basis for living, I understand why life sucks, your god idea/logic has failed. The proof is in your completely confused, self justified beliefs. I cannot even imagine trying to teach your logic to a child.
I hope,,,,,,, uh oh,,,,,,,I said it, shit , I must have a god belief in me now,,,,, you will try to read your own post from a different perspective. Your the reason xianity, god ect..... needs to be completely forgotten about in our society
I don't that Wallis divulgence that he is buddhist changes a thing about anyone's arguments. Either way, his viewpoints contradicting and arguing against what most posters here believe, remain.
As does, likewise, his arrogance. He can't even go into a blog, the nature of which is abundantly clear by its title, and set forth his ideas and thoughts without laughing in the face of those who frequent it.
I'd just have to conclude, that in the end, Wallis is as little-minded as what he desires to purport of us.
I haven't even turned "editing comments" on to be honest. I think we all get the meaning of what you meant, especially with the clarification.
As for Wallis, it's typical snobbish, theologian carp. He refers to concepts like Boltzmann Brains (not by name of course) and the uncertainty of last-Tuesdayism all the while not understanding that it does not help his position. Then, he claims that since I am presenting arguments against the existence of god, that I'm proving that god exists - followed by him accusing me of needing a refresher course in logic, which at best would be the pot calling kettle black.
"You state that God is responsible for everything, although you enjoy doting on all the bad things and purposely skip over the good things."
If god comes and pokes you in the eye and then gives you a soda, will you be happy that he poked you in the eye? Will he be forgiven for doing that because he gave you a soda? Yes, if god is responsible for all, then he is also responsible for the good, but this does not help your argument in the least. By this logic, god is not all good or even good at all, but neutral at best. This also runs into the problems that I've stated in other posts about god tossing people in to drown and then saving some. An obvious problem there is god's foreknowledge. If you knew that throwing someone into a pool would result in them drowning, would you do it? A moral and sane person would not.
"You decry theologians, yet you have no understanding of theology (and it is apparent that you have no desire to understand theology)."
Actually, I can make up BS just as well as about anyone else. There's nothing special about the study of theology, as it's basically a study of reading the made-up BS that other people have come up with by pulling it out of their rectums. Their stories are not based on evidence, but on faith and not reality based. You may as well study fairy tales.
"You lump Christians into one group. This is called stereotyping and is typical of bigotted thinking."
That, sir, is a blatant falsehood. Please point out where I am stereotyping Xians. Do not make charges that you can't back up.
"And for the record, I am Buddhist."
And, for the record, I don't care. Your arguments are still poor.
God is good because everything in your heart that is against him, feels evil inside you. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit it comes from a dark place.
"God is good because everything in your heart that is against him, feels evil inside you. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit it comes from a dark place."
Is this a serious reply? Do you honestly think that this is a compelling argument? How do you presume to know what is in my heart? How do you presume to know about my self-honesty? You only come across as arrogant and rude when you make such comments and they do nothing to actually help your argument. All you've done is simply make sweeping generalizations, un-supportable assertions, and then re-asserted that which is under dispute.
"We know God is good because the Bible tells us so. We know the Bible is right because it says that it's right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about ...
Oops! sorry. I got into circular resoning somehow. I gotta stop doing that.
25 comments:
Because he said so of course :p Who are we puny humans to question his words :p He said himself he loves us...why shouldn't we trust him :) Oh wait, you wrote quite a few posts why we shouldn't :)
Oh, sorry, I have just seen that you asked only theists for answer...
Anyone can answer, so don't worry about it. In fact, I liked your comment. ;)
We know God is good because the Bible tells us so. We know the Bible is right because it says that it's right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about ...
Oops! sorry. I got into circular resoning somehow. I gotta stop doing that.
As a theologian, I take issue with the current understanding of "good."
The Jewish writers wrote "good" not in the understanding of 21st Century definition but in an understanding that whatever God made and caused to happen is "good."
Spartans used to leave deformed children and the infirm on a hillside to be killed by wild beasts. They declared this action "good." We certainly would not.
You mentioned in one of your opening topics that a Muslim kills his daughter out of honor killing. Muslims would state that this action is "good." We would not.
For thousands of years, people have been killing people in wars. The victors declared that their actions were "good." Most of us would disagree.
Our modern notion of "good" must have its counterpart "bad." We have determined (and legislated) what we feel is "good" and what is "bad." Our notion of "good" and "bad" cannot be applied to God.
Why? Because everytime we try to attach a label of "good" or "bad" on something we feel God did turns out that the ation was "good."
A baby dies a few days old, and an old man lives to be a ripe old age of a 100. We blame God for being "bad" when the baby died, because we have this one-sided opinion that babies should live long lives. We forget that we have an extremely myopic view of life, that the few days of life on Earth was all that was needed for the baby to move on. The baby did not need to suffer an entire lifetime, and that is "good."
Which brings up one point alluded to above. We all want to blame God for everything, when in reality God does nothing.
The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true. He created a universe, gave it a whole bunch of laws that we limited humans have barely begun to understand. These laws are in place here on the Earth, and when these laws act normally, we then want to look at God and ask: "What the hell did you do that for?"
God can rightly acclaim: "I didn't do anything. But it was good."
"Ya just killed 350,000 people!"
"No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives. A natural law of physics occurred. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, maybe they were in the right place at the right time so I could take them home. You figure it out."
Wallis said
"The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true.
'Ya just killed 350,000 people!'
'No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives.'"
Now Wallis, your words are a relief. There are a few people that have really screwed me financially and profressionally. Since they chose to do this, I can now, without a guily conscience, go out, get a shotgun, and take care of them.
In seriousness, that was perhaps the greatest double-speak that I have yet observed here on this blog.
Now I realize why my life has been such a wreak without my attempts to make it so. God created these laws, laws that conflict with the existance of mankind within a common environment, and consequently, as a result, "bad" things alway happen to "good" people.
Or is it actually that "bad" things are happening to "bad" people because they have pissed God off and he is therefore smiting them?
Wallis,
"The Jewish writers wrote "good" not in the understanding of 21st Century definition but in an understanding that whatever God made and caused to happen is "good.""
So, the wanton genocides caused by god are good? If you wish to define whatever god does/decides to do/orders as "good" then you're gored by Euthyphro's dilemma, in that when god orders murder or rape, it is "good". We have concepts, as humans, of what good is and god certainly does not fit those concepts.
"Our notion of "good" and "bad" cannot be applied to God."
Then how can you judge that god is good in our modern understanding, or are you rejecting that notion? If it is simply a self-referential definition of "good" then we have no need for it and we may as well say that god's actions are "flubarb" or any other made-up word. My dictionary, however, says that the word "good" means morally excellent, righteous, etc. god surely does not fulfill these definitions.
"Why? Because everytime we try to attach a label of "good" or "bad" on something we feel God did turns out that the ation was "good.""
And, what was good about the tsunami that you referenced? You can't say. All you can do is try to paint the bulls-eye around where the arrow landed. It's called counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
"A baby dies a few days old, and an old man lives to be a ripe old age of a 100. We blame God for being "bad" when the baby died, because we have this one-sided opinion that babies should live long lives. We forget that we have an extremely myopic view of life, that the few days of life on Earth was all that was needed for the baby to move on. The baby did not need to suffer an entire lifetime, and that is "good.""
This is a prime example of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. When god treats us all differently, he is being inherently unfair. The baby that gets to go to heaven after living for less than an hour does not have to suffer as you put it, while god causes the man who lives to 100 to suffer? This is good to you?
"The 2004 earthquake/tsunami wipes out nearly 350,000 people. We are quick to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible. Not true. He created a universe, gave it a whole bunch of laws that we limited humans have barely begun to understand."
OK, so god created a universe with physical laws that cause tsunamis to happen that will wipe out thousands of people and you can claim with a straight face that god had nothing to do with it? Sorry, but that's some pretty weak reasoning. If god created the universe and is omni-max then everything is the fault of god, whether good or bad. So, when people get killed in natural disasters it IS god's fault, you can't deny that, else you are denying that god is omni-max or that god had knowledge when he set up the universe that these things would happen.
"No, I didn't. Those people were supposed to be there. Or, those people chose to be there. I didn't send them there to snuff out their lives. A natural law of physics occurred. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, maybe they were in the right place at the right time so I could take them home. You figure it out."
And, here you paint a god that is indifferent to our plights and struggles - so much for the personal, caring god that supposedly loves us, right?
Very good counterpoints. However, it seems that I have not made myself clear. That's okay. I like to expand the dialogue.
gtc went to the dictionary and defined the word "good." That's well and good. But you missed the point when I stated that the Jewish writers were not using a dictionary, and they were not defining God in terms of what they thought was "good" and "bad."
gtc: you stated that when people are killed in natural disasters, it is God's fault. This is partially correct, but mostly incorrect.
In modern society, if you leave an extension cord on the floor and a thief trips over it while breaking into your house, you are partially responsible for that thief's injury. You should not have left the extension cord out for him to trip over in the first place. But the thief made a choice to enter your house, and the fact that he tripped over your extension cord is mostly his fault. He made the choice and suffered the consequence.
You plainly make a case that this life sucks, and it is all God's fault. Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing.
Too many people want to blame God for everything. That's human nature. We refuse to accept that all the blame lies squarely on our shoulders.
God is loving and caring. That's why he is trying to kill us and take us back to him as quickly as he can. Does that sound weird to you? It should, because too many so-called Christian churches preach that "if you love God, God will bountifully enrich your lives." The Christ's message (and you can include Buddha's teachings here) was that you are going to die. You are going to suffer a hell of a lot before you get out of jail. Believing in the Christ or God or Buddha or your favorite rock/crystal/whatever is not going to make this very short life a "heaven."
God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next.
wallis said: "God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next."
So how did the early jews define "god cares"? Does this not have its apparent meaning? Jesus said not to worry, that even the birds are taken care of. Yet, millions in Africa have died from starvation; many people even in this country are without basic needs.
I don't think god cares, I have experienced him as a mean, ruthless, unloving, and vindictive being.
I feel your pain, Anonymous. It does seem that God does not care because we only have the "here and now."
We all are too wrapped up in trying to put food on the table, enjoy a good life, etc. to really give a "care" about what lies outside our reality.
And, we get mighty frustrated when things "bad" happen: the expected outcome of all our energies does not materialize.
I try to look at life as a string of "supposed to"'s. The reason why I exist here is not so much as to put on an entertaining show for God but to learn something. What am I supposed to learn? Well, that is another huge question.
I have had my share of problems in life: I'm digging myself out of my fourth hole. Of course, I cannot equate my troubles with many others who are worse off, but I have felt screwed many times.
For me, it is too easy to turn to God and complain why he "hates" me. Rather, I can see (and only I can see because I am the only one living my life) where he is supporting me through all of these "supposed to"'s.
When I close my eyes for the final time, all I have left is trust and belief that God will take care of me into the after-life.
I know that this all sounds illogical, but that is the definition of faith: believing when everything else says you're nuts to believe. The proof exists only for me: that when I look back over my life, I see where God has been caring and taking care of me. The problem is: no one can get into my head and feel and experience what I have to have an understanding of why I believe and from what point Im cming from.
Wallis,
"gtc went to the dictionary and defined the word "good." That's well and good. But you missed the point when I stated that the Jewish writers were not using a dictionary, and they were not defining God in terms of what they thought was "good" and "bad.""
Really, your short answer to the OP is that either you can't know that god is good or that you simply define it that way, which destroys the common notion of the word.
"gtc: you stated that when people are killed in natural disasters, it is God's fault. This is partially correct, but mostly incorrect."
Actually it is all god's fault. How anything can happen that is not 100% caused by an omni-max deity is not logically possible.
"You plainly make a case that this life sucks, and it is all God's fault. Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing."
Actually, I love life. I'm making the case that god is unjust, unloving, and not moral.
And, there's no reason for god to make life suck. If it is true that we can only learn when life sucks, then it is because god created us that way. He very well could have created us without this flaw.
"Too many people want to blame God for everything. That's human nature. We refuse to accept that all the blame lies squarely on our shoulders."
I am not to blame for god creating hell. I am not to blame for being created "sinful." I am not to blame for Adam and Eve's supposed crimes. I am not to blame for being human. I am not to blame for god not giving us evidence of his existence. Need I go on?
"God is loving and caring."
He loves us so much that he'll send us to hell. Beautiful.
And, let's get something straight here. You can't simultaneously argue that you can't judge god because you can't really know about god since he is so far above us, but then turn around and claim that you can know that god loves us and cares about us. How can you possibly know that based on your previous arguments? Make up your mind.
"The Christ's message (and you can include Buddha's teachings here) was that you are going to die. You are going to suffer a hell of a lot before you get out of jail."
Yes, because god loves us so much he's decided that we need to suffer and die. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
"God cares enough that he is going to take care of you no matter what happens in this life or the next."
If you mean "take care of" as in throw into a pit of fire and torment for eternity, then I'd hate to see what god does when he doesn't care or isn't feeling loving.
"We all are too wrapped up in trying to put food on the table, enjoy a good life, etc. to really give a "care" about what lies outside our reality."
Yes, and god cares, which is why he makes us toil and work to have to put food on our tables? How many contradictory notions can you fit into 2 comments I wonder?
"The reason why I exist here is not so much as to put on an entertaining show for God but to learn something."
And, you evidence for this is probably as non-existent as your evidence for god, right?
"Rather, I can see (and only I can see because I am the only one living my life) where he is supporting me through all of these "supposed to"'s."
So, he puts you there and he supports you? Wouldn't it be better to simply support you? Of course, you will claim that all these "evils" are squarely your fault. Do you know what battered spouse syndrome is? It's when one spouse will beat the other followed by a loving period. The spouse being beat will be told that it is his/her own fault, and he/she will internalize it and agree that if they just didn't mess up, the other person wouldn't have to beat them. Does this sound familiar to your life?
"When I close my eyes for the final time, all I have left is trust and belief that God will take care of me into the after-life."
And your evidence for this is?
"I know that this all sounds illogical..."
That's because it is. Plain and simply put, it is. You have admitted that you have no evidence for god, yet you believe in him? Do you similarly believe in the FSM, the celestial teapot, invisible, pink unicorns, and fuhghtyheser? (Note the last word is just made up. I just made up that concept, but you have just as much evidence for it as you do for your god, so you may as well believe that it is something that you can believe in.)
"The proof exists only for me: that when I look back over my life, I see where God has been caring and taking care of me. The problem is: no one can get into my head and feel and experience what I have to have an understanding of why I believe and from what point Im cming from."
Um, no that's not proof. It's not even evidence. It's confirmation bias with begging the question with a little bit of counting the hits and ignoring the misses thrown in for good measure.
I see that we are talking in circular arguments, and we are not getting anywhere.
You demand concrete proof. You will not get concrete proof.
You insist on there being a "hell." There is no hell.
You refuse the argument that God exists in all of the nonsense. You will not confirm the existence of nonsense. Yet, nonsense exists.
Actually, I am kind of proud of you in this respect: you have (for your own reasons) rejected the existence of God because he does not exist in words and dogma and ritual. You have taken your first real step in finding out what God is all about.
I have many atheists as friends, but none of them are as unhappy as you, and that's a pity. They do not "run around" and decry all aspects of religion as if they are angry hornets upsetting their lives.
Every atheist hopes. Would you deny the existence of hope? Give me proof that hope exists. I know you hope for something. Would I not be wrong for telling you that what you hope for is ridiculous in the same vein/disdain that you apply to people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?
Wallis wrote:
>people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?<
Wallace, what would "proof" be within a particular frame of reference?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word proof. You're willing to twist the meaning of any word in order to keep alive your belief in a purely imaginary god.
"I know that this all sounds illogical, but that is the definition of faith: believing when everything else says you're nuts to believe.
Yes, it does sound illogical, so why should we put any faith in your beliefs? Tell me, if you would, do you have any other illogical beliefs you can share with us? Or are you only illogical when it comes to your religious beliefs?
You don't think the moon is made of cheese, do you? Do you believe water runs uphill? Do you think fairies create electricity?
No, in most ways, you think logically. When it comes to something you don't understand - the origin of the universe - and when it comes to something you are afraid of - dying - you can only think illogically. Pretty pathetic.
>The proof exists only for me"<
Again, your understanding of the meaning of the word "proof" is obviously not the same as it is for the rest of us. You twist it to mean what you want it to mean, so that you can continue to believe in an imaginary god.
Once you understand there is no god, everything begins to make sense. For you, though, everything that's important - why we exist, why thousands can die in cataclysmic events, etc. - is illogical, by your own admission.
So why are you here, admitting to us that you are illogical, telling us that only you can understand your own weird thoughts?
It will all make sense to you when you admit the truth: there is no god.
Wallis,
"You demand concrete proof. You will not get concrete proof."
I demand some type of evidence. You've admitted that none is forthcoming. If you have no evidence to supply then it is highly irrational for you to believe in this deity. If you think it is rational, then you should also believe in the FSM, the celestial teapot, and anything else I can conjure up sans evidence.
"You insist on there being a "hell." There is no hell."
According to the only purported source for knowing and understanding your deity, there is a hell. Even if no hell, exists, however, my arguments stand intact.
"You refuse the argument that God exists in all of the nonsense. You will not confirm the existence of nonsense. Yet, nonsense exists."
Is this supposed to be a coherent argument for god? I admit it, nonsense does exist, as your argument clearly shows...being that it is nothing but nonsense. Yet, it still does not argue for god, and even if it did it would be quite the Pyrrhic victory seeing as how you are arguing for a god of nonsense.
"Actually, I am kind of proud of you in this respect: you have (for your own reasons) rejected the existence of God because he does not exist in words and dogma and ritual. You have taken your first real step in finding out what God is all about."
Freedom is slavery, right?
"I have many atheists as friends, but none of them are as unhappy as you, and that's a pity."
Thank you for your pop psychology, but who said I'm unhappy?
"They do not "run around" and decry all aspects of religion as if they are angry hornets upsetting their lives."
And, this isn't my day job, so what? I'm not allowed to have a hobby?
"Every atheist hopes. Would you deny the existence of hope? Give me proof that hope exists."
Um, you just supplied it. Yes, everyone has hopes, this has nothing to do with the existence of god.
"I know you hope for something. Would I not be wrong for telling you that what you hope for is ridiculous in the same vein/disdain that you apply to people who decide to place hope and trust in an unprovable God (scientifically) but provable within their own frames of reference?"
Considering that it's not provable "within their own frames of reference" it's not a valid analogy. Nevertheless, I should think that the things that I believe and hope for should be held up to scrutiny to see if they actually accord with reality. I can hope to be able to jump over a 10 story building in a single bound unaided, but seeing as how that is impossible, I see no reason for someone to not call me out on that. But, let's look at the argument you are really making here. You are basically arguing for god by saying that I shouldn't be mean to others by pointing out the illogical and irrational beliefs they hold. Even if it were true that I should not be pointing out their beliefs are illogical and irrational, that does nothing to prove that god exists.
Hey - where'd Wallis go? Well, I'm not surprised.
Your example of "hope" illustrates quite clearly that you do understand the meaning of hope.
You cannot prove hope, love, anger, hate, or any feelings exist.
You cannot even prove that you exist.
Sure, you can show manifestations of the above, but these do not qualify as empirical proof.
It is universally agreed that the statement "I think; therefore I am" is not empirical proof that you, indeed, do exist.
All of your plaintiff arguments, rants, and complaints against God, specifically the Christian God (although why you singularly pick him among all the other views of God is beyond me).
You state that God created a Hell. Interesting that you pick a more modern version of Hell, a Western version, and completely ignore the Eastern concept of Hell.
You state that God is responsible for everything, although you enjoy doting on all the bad things and purposely skip over the good things.
These arguments and more are existential proof, given by your own hand that God exists. Congratulations.
Also, it is worthy to note that you like to pick on the Bible and ignore a cornucopia of scriptures throughout the world.
You decry theologians, yet you have no understanding of theology (and it is apparent that you have no desire to understand theology).
You lump Christians into one group. This is called stereotyping and is typical of bigotted thinking.
So, I leave you two barren wombs to commiserate in unproductive and low-esteem lives, because this dickhead could not find any eggs to germinate.
Also, I would suggest you all take a course in logic, because thus far you have not presented any logical arguments here.
And for the record, I am Buddhist.
Wallis,
Early in the discussion the entirety of your viewpoint wasn't clear and I think we all assumed that you were another evangelical zombie. Was gct applying a brand of logic that was intended for that type of thread-poster? I think so.
"And for the record, I am Buddhist."
Late in the discussion, you've _finally_ clarified your position as, -Buddhism philosophy... terrific! Will you please clarify your position on Christian religion? You do not hold the usual religious doctrines and so you'll need to clarify yourself unless your goal is to create confusion. What is the main objective of your discussion throughout this blog?
"[...] you have no understanding of theology [...]"
Here it is, Wallis: In the current world, only a few _real_ 'theologians' exist. The word has been redefined by, and used by, people who want the world to adopt their emotionally-driven perspectives. Obviously. gct assumes that colloquial definition of the word.
Injecting strict formal definition into that word is an example of how you are just muddying the waters here. What is the point of this? You understand the messages that gct is communicating. Start receiving the messages in the way they were meant to be received so that we can move the discussion forward.
You keep introducing various side-arguments ... "you have no understanding of theology"... "take a course in logic" ... "two barren wombs" ... What are you talking about? You haven't explained any of this. What is the point of writing this if you won't explain what the thinking is behind these statements?
What we should do, Wallis, is instead of saying “Here's YOUR opinion, here is another opinion, take a logic class” what you should do is start to analyse whether what gct wrote, is right or wrong. Show us your analysis. You're being way too overly vague and evasive and I don't see any real rebuttal or analysis from you.
Do you have anything that says that gct is wrong (that god is specifically 'good')? Surely, if you are a theologian, you've thought about it and you've figured something out that we haven't. Let's hear about it. Lets prove gct wrong, lets stop using vague language and arguments and lets start nailing the issue down and lets start constructing things with _real_ logic. You wrote that gct should take a logic class, well show us how its done because we are ready at any time to start seeing it.
"Your example of "hope" illustrates quite clearly that you do understand the meaning of hope.
You cannot prove hope, love, anger, hate, or any feelings exist.
You cannot even prove that you exist.
Sure, you can show manifestations of the above, but these do not qualify as empirical proof.
It is universally agreed that the statement "I think; therefore I am" is not empirical proof that you, indeed, do exist."
You could continue zooming out and abstracting things and endlessly heaping meta-argument upon meta-argument. What is your point? Please prove that god is good in a way that satisfies the layer of thought in which we _do_ exist.
Man, it's been a little while since I have been here and I am reminded by Wallis why I.........hold on one second...............Sorry, I just finished beating the shit out of my one month old, you see, life sucks, and before that little child can get out of jail.......
"Yes. Life sucks. It is supposed to; otherwise, we do learn nothing"
You see she needs to learn something, and if she dies, well she will go to heaven & be with god and bla, bla bla.
Wallis, your logic is based on the feeling that your life sucks and suicide is not an option, even though that will get you to god much faster. Since you feel this way, there has to be hope because that is all that keeps you going, but why have hope on earth when you can just check out and go be with god? Understand that I am not telling you to commit suicide, just pointing out that your logic is why "life sucks". I will say this, if this is your basis for living, I understand why life sucks, your god idea/logic has failed. The proof is in your completely confused, self justified beliefs. I cannot even imagine trying to teach your logic to a child.
I hope,,,,,,, uh oh,,,,,,,I said it, shit , I must have a god belief in me now,,,,, you will try to read your own post from a different perspective. Your the reason xianity, god ect..... needs to be completely forgotten about in our society
I don't that Wallis divulgence that he is buddhist changes a thing about anyone's arguments. Either way, his viewpoints contradicting and arguing against what most posters here believe, remain.
As does, likewise, his arrogance. He can't even go into a blog, the nature of which is abundantly clear by its title, and set forth his ideas and thoughts without laughing in the face of those who frequent it.
I'd just have to conclude, that in the end, Wallis is as little-minded as what he desires to purport of us.
GCT.... would you mind editing my prior comment to state "I don't THINK Wallis' divulgence ..." and then deleting this one? Thank you.
I haven't even turned "editing comments" on to be honest. I think we all get the meaning of what you meant, especially with the clarification.
As for Wallis, it's typical snobbish, theologian carp. He refers to concepts like Boltzmann Brains (not by name of course) and the uncertainty of last-Tuesdayism all the while not understanding that it does not help his position. Then, he claims that since I am presenting arguments against the existence of god, that I'm proving that god exists - followed by him accusing me of needing a refresher course in logic, which at best would be the pot calling kettle black.
"You state that God is responsible for everything, although you enjoy doting on all the bad things and purposely skip over the good things."
If god comes and pokes you in the eye and then gives you a soda, will you be happy that he poked you in the eye? Will he be forgiven for doing that because he gave you a soda? Yes, if god is responsible for all, then he is also responsible for the good, but this does not help your argument in the least. By this logic, god is not all good or even good at all, but neutral at best. This also runs into the problems that I've stated in other posts about god tossing people in to drown and then saving some. An obvious problem there is god's foreknowledge. If you knew that throwing someone into a pool would result in them drowning, would you do it? A moral and sane person would not.
"You decry theologians, yet you have no understanding of theology (and it is apparent that you have no desire to understand theology)."
Actually, I can make up BS just as well as about anyone else. There's nothing special about the study of theology, as it's basically a study of reading the made-up BS that other people have come up with by pulling it out of their rectums. Their stories are not based on evidence, but on faith and not reality based. You may as well study fairy tales.
"You lump Christians into one group. This is called stereotyping and is typical of bigotted thinking."
That, sir, is a blatant falsehood. Please point out where I am stereotyping Xians. Do not make charges that you can't back up.
"And for the record, I am Buddhist."
And, for the record, I don't care. Your arguments are still poor.
God is good because everything in your heart that is against him, feels evil inside you. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit it comes from a dark place.
God is good.
"God is good because everything in your heart that is against him, feels evil inside you. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit it comes from a dark place."
Is this a serious reply? Do you honestly think that this is a compelling argument? How do you presume to know what is in my heart? How do you presume to know about my self-honesty? You only come across as arrogant and rude when you make such comments and they do nothing to actually help your argument. All you've done is simply make sweeping generalizations, un-supportable assertions, and then re-asserted that which is under dispute.
"We know God is good because the Bible tells us so. We know the Bible is right because it says that it's right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about everything. We know that the Bible is right about everything because it says that it is right about ...
Oops! sorry. I got into circular resoning somehow. I gotta stop doing that.
"
WHAT THE FUCK IS SHIT SHIT
Post a Comment