God, version 2

There is no logic that can be applied to God as a figure ; entity. It requires faith. It's the belief system or the faith of the individual that can be tackled logically .

 

I agree with Kriskluwe. Logic doesn't apply to God; God does not have to exist with the confines of human logic, especially if God exists on a metaphysical plane that is beyond our comprehension.

However, there are some principles we could accept, i.e. I think we could say that God must have always existed, that God would not be constrained by time. If God created the universe, then God has always existed, before the universe itself existed.

 

Oh, and to clarify for me, God is a fallacy invented for human purposes of power and corruption initially and has evolved somewhat as an idea , with revisions , of compassion and empathy, but still has its original emphasis embedded within its adherents .

 

Some things I'd like to mention regarding Christianity in particular - you don't need to believe in creationism (God created the world in 7 days) to believe in God. Some versions of Christianity believe that the seven creative days simply represent seven periods of time. From this perspective, there is no theological reason to believe that the "Big Bang" didn't happen. In fact, I have a question for those who believe in the big bang but not a creator - how did that mass of particles show up? It takes a great deal of faith to accept that it was just there.

Also, more applicable to your initial question, (also applying to Christianity specifically, sorry) Isaiah 40:26 says that God was able to create everything because of his "abundant" or "vast dynamic energy". If god has an essentially infinite supply of energy (and frankly, no one can really explain what the heck energy in itself is), it would make sense that He would also have the ability to convert that energy into matter. Physicists consider matter and energy to be two sides of the same coin, and while we can only convert matter into energy, it isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that God could do the opposite.

Just my two cents.

 

people who discount logical arguments in favor of the existence of a God haven't heard of Spinoza or Schleiermacher. Granted the way they present and argue in favor of God basically you end up with reasons that no one actually uses to justify belief, but there are loigically sound arguments in favor that exist.

 

Why does it? Why does it take any more faith than assuming an omnipotent God was "just there"?

 

The idea of religion is faith and belief. A reassurance that gives us hope that we won't be alone after death because no one knows what happens after that. It also establishes a lot of morals.


That's all I'm going to say on this. I'm not coming back to this thread so don't bother quoting me on what I'm saying.


Congrats, you've all found a way to offend me and aggravate me. Unintentionally I assume, but nevertheless I'm annoyed.

 

Well, you've done plenty of that to other people on this forum.

And questioning God/discussing religion in an academic context is perfectly acceptable.

 

You have a point there.

 

ugh God as the basis for morals. Divine Command Theory is a joke.

 

And I'm just saying things for the purpose of discussion, remember, not stating my beliefs either way.

We discussed all of this in an ethics course I took last year. I have to agree with you there.

 

Miracles when asked?

 

I'm not completely sure about that. I think the concept of God and gods were hit upon honestly by people seeking to explain their world.

However, that has been seized upon very frequently by those seeking to gain or maintain power. How are you supposed to argue with someone who has a direct line to the power of God or gods or whatever? Arguing with the king was arguing with God.

Pretty neat trick.

 

It must exist within our universe. The universe is the only known isolated thermodynamic system in existence and so cannot be affected by something from the outside. Because it must exist in our universe, it must obey all our natural laws. That means, no breaking the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, light speed barrier. It also cannot be omnipotent as Omnipotence is a logical impossibly (an omnipotent being could create a rock that nothing could lift and yet could lift it as it can lift anything, therefore it has not the power to create a rock that nothing can lift and so isn't omnipotent). It cannot be omnipresent as that would require it to be everything in the universe at once. It's proved it's not omnibenevolent.

 

There is no such thing as "human logic." We're talking about logic, that is, inferential rules of the universe.

 

Distinction should be made with regard to tradition with a lower case t and with an uppercase T and Christian belief. "Liberal" Protestants , Roman Catholics follow this type of theology . The o t ,for example , is to be drawn upon figuratively whereas the n t ,especially the gospels , are to be taken more for their specific message( it's not as interpretive) .This doesn't negate the posit by some large Christian bodies, eg evangelicals , southern baptists and a few others, that the entire bible is meant to be taken literally . They see it as sola scriptura. What's written is the divinely revealed word of God to the authors . Irregardless of timeline interruptions ; questions about authorship etc.
I only point this out because to use the moniker of "Christian" is nebulous for me since I don't think one gets to pick and choose what comes engendered to that title. If pushed, most people would revert to what they're familiar with in regard to whatever specific belief set they're familiar with .
i guess I don't feel comfortable separating out what is irrevocably entwined into the aforementioned moniker of Christian < redundant by me.
Someone in another thread ? mentioned encyclicals of the Catholic Church and the second Vatican council . While theyre liberal interpretation is nice . It doesn't negate the fact that the magisterium of said church is the ultimate authority on what's predicated . As regards the book of Isaiah , it's a perfect example of a text that has come under great scrutiny for its authorship and it's veracity due to timeline discrepancies and , among other things, the controversy of the Dead Sea scrolls .
Fuck, I've nerded myself to death. Time for arabic and that boring ass class.

 

This sounds really well thought-out at first, but it makes me think back to the "holographic universe" theory and how our reality might be like The Sims. No fundamental rules we apply to a computer simulation need be followed by anything outside it unless it just happens to be a rule for us first. There's nothing I can imagine to discount the possibility of a meta-universe playing host to ours.

God may not be "omnibenevolent" as you say because it could be within his power to stop suffering, but you're getting into really nebulous territory here as you claim to know his intentions to a point. I'm of the opinion that if he does have a plan, human pain is part of it and causes progress towards a goal.

Mostly true, except that logical progressions like causation (brought up by Hexagon) only work when you see time as a human does, looking back on the past and forward to the future from the present. If we could see every instant that ever was and will be at the same time (which I presume God or gods can), certainly causation would appear a little different.

I love threads like these. Extra-strength brain food.

 

*covers eyes* This is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate thread, but I feel like it could get out of hand very quickly. Play safe, everyone.