What’s the point of “God”?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2013, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 07:54 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 07:38 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  ...I find that the concept of a god only makes sense in a human context, as soon as you look at the natural world as a whole or take the entire universe, god becomes a ludicrous idea...

Exactly my point. The point is that it cannot be reconciled to make sense outside of human context, which is damning evidence that it's man made. And that's the first and most important leap I would need to make to even began to considering any validity of a "God" concept. If you can't get past the plausibility of a "God" existing in the first place, than nothing that follows from that concept matters. It would be interesting to hear a reasonable explanation from a theist for this question. That will never happen though.

Thanks, Paranoidsam!


I hear Christians all the time cite bible scripture as proof, and I always explain, they are jumping way ahead of themselves. They need to explain how there could even be a "God" first before that book could even be anything other than a book. And if you can do that, then we have the nest leap of getting to, even if there is a "God", how does that get this version of "God" in this book in particular, and not any of the others..

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 07:52 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
Accidental post...ignore this reply...

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 10:27 PM by Chippy.)
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 07:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Finally someone got where I was going with that! Thanks, Stevil!

Both you and Stevil are inventing your own god--and that isn't a problem per se--and then asking others to explicate some detail about your god and then complaining that the detail provided by others is inconsistent with your god.

The god that you and Stevil have described is not the god of Judaism, Chistianity or Islam.

Quote:If you take the Christian concept of "God", and only concern yourself with "God", and not worry at all about "his" interaction with people, then what's his deal? If "God", according to Christian mythos, is eternal, and is not a creation of man, but exist in his own right, then man does not matter at all in the context of understanding "God" "himself".

Yes and that is unproblematic for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:But that right there is actually my very point. If, hypothetically they were right, and the all "omni"s "God" were real, then his existence is not predicated on us, are wants, fears, needs, or illusions. "He" would have existed even if he decided never to make us.

That too is unproblematic for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:Here is the reverse of John Lennon's song. Imagine there are no people, no earth, no sky. But again, imagine "God" is actually real, but never created people. "God's" purpose would not be to give priest a way to control the population, there are no priest, it would not be to give us someway to explain the unknown, there would be no people to need a way to explain it, it would not be to provide people with a false sense of comfort or source of morality, there would be no people to need those things.

Yes and that too is unproblematic for for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:Again, imagine there actually are no people, at all, ever, or ever will be, so answers based on human needs, or human fabrications are not possible, because there are no people to base those things on. Pretend, with me, for just a moment, for the sake of this thought, that this is true, and that "God" is in fact real,

Yes I am,

Quote:and there are no people to justify "his" existence.

This is where you start to fashion your own private god. No aspect of creation justifies the existinence of Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity.

Quote:If Christians are right, and "God" does in fact exist, then he would exist whether we exist or not. So an explanation of why "God" exist, if "he" really did, would be wholly separated from any explanation connected to human beings in anyway.

Yes I get that.

Quote:So in that light, why would "God" exist in the first place?

Because he is the only necessary existent, the "Alpha and the Omega". He is the uncaused Cause.

Quote:Understand, I am not looking for an actual answer to this question, because there is none. And that's the point.

There is no answer in relation to your private god because you've given him a particular set of attributes which preclude an answer. But if I carry the thought experiment with Yahweh, Allah and the Trinity there is a coherent answer.

Quote:"God" would have had to come first, then make human beings for any of the explanations anyone ever gives for the reason for "God's" existence or purpose.

This again is where you are describing your own private god. But this logic fails even when we apply it to humans. If person P performs actions X, Y and Z it does not entail that X, Y and Z are the raison d'etre of P--they might be but they needn't be. If I make a paper aeroplane that isn't the purpose of my existence. By the same logic and also because scripture says otherwise, creation is not the reason or purpose of Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity's existence.

Quote:But "God", if he exist, should have an explanation for existing separate from anything related to humans.

Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah do have such an explanation.

Quote:If the only way "God's" existence could be explained, by the believer, in relation to humans, and not for separate unrelated reason to humans, then the only reason, there for the only way, "God" could exist, even if "he" were real, would be if "he" created humans.

But that isn't the way Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah's existence are justified.

Quote:So if "God's" existence is predicated on humans being created, then "God" had no choice about creating humans. Thus not all powerful.

In all three monotheistic faiths creation is entirely contingent, the god in each case chose to create for one reason or another and none of those reasons were necessary.

Quote:However, that does not make sense even if "God" was actually real. So either "God" would need some explanation to his existence (and my question is, what would that be?),

In this case you are merely asking "what created God?", "How did God come to exist?" etc. in a very convoluted manner.

Quote:having no context to humans, or if creation of humans is the only way to explain "God" then "he" could never have existed in the first place, so any answer based on human beings would not answer the question at all, and misses the point of the question.

That is a characteristic of your private god so you can tell whatever story you like about him.

Quote:Of course, I already realize it's a fatal question, in that there is no "God" there for no answer. But it's a logic puzzle, a koan.

It's not a logic puzzle. What you have done is offered your audience a language game that they are familiar with (or at least can become familiar with by virtue of its publication), i.e. Christian god talk. But then you have ushered your audience into a different language game, i.e. private god talk; which we can't really play because we have no information about your private god. Then by coincidence someone arrives that has the same misunderstanding about the Trinity as you do--i.e. shares in the initially private god by chance--and you play a language game with him (Stevil). That is all fine but it is pointless on a discussion forum (and your dissatisfaction with most of the replies corroborates that). If you want to play a Christian god talk language game that is fine, we can all refer to the Bible and theology texts to understand how he is defined and play accordingly. But you can't advertise a Christian god talk game and then play a language game about an idiosyncratic god and then complain that you are being misunderstood or claim that you have created/discovered some profound aporia.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 10:17 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 09:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 07:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Finally someone got where I was going with that! Thanks, Stevil!

Both you and Stevil are inventing your own god--and that isn't a problem per se--and then asking others to explicate some detail about your god and then complaining that the detail provided by others is inconsistent with your god.

The god that you and Stevil have described is not the god of Judaism, Chistianity or Islam.

Quote:If you take the Christian concept of "God", and only concern yourself with "God", and not worry at all about "his" interaction with people, then what's his deal? If "God", according to Christian mythos, is eternal, and is not a creation of man, but exist in his own right, then man does not matter at all in the context of understanding "God" "himself".

Yes and that is unproblematic for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:But that right there is actually my very point. If, hypothetically they were right, and the all "omni"s "God" were real, then his existence is not predicated on us, are wants, fears, needs, or illusions. "He" would have existed even if he decided never to make us.

That too is unproblematic for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:Here is the reverse of John Lennon's song. Imagine there are no people, no earth, no sky. But again, imagine "God" is actually real, but never created people. "God's" purpose would not be to give priest a way to control the population, there are no priest, it would not be to give us someway to explain the unknown, there would be no people to need a way to explain it, it would not be to provide people with a false sense of comfort or source of morality, there would be no people to need those things.

Yes and that too is unproblematic for for Judaism, Chistianity and Islam.

Quote:Again, imagine there actually are no people, at all, ever, or ever will be, so answers based on human needs, or human fabrications are not possible, because there are no people to base those things on. Pretend, with me, for just a moment, for the sake of this thought, that this is true, and that "God" is in fact real,

Yes I am,

Quote:and there are no people to justify "his" existence.

This is where you start to fashion your own private god. No aspect of creation justifies the existinence of Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity.

Quote:If Christians are right, and "God" does in fact exist, then he would exist whether we exist or not. So an explanation of why "God" exist, if "he" really did, would be wholly separated from any explanation connected to human beings in anyway.

Yes I get that.

Quote:So in that light, why would "God" exist in the first place?

Because he is the only necessary existent, the "Alpha and the Omega". He is the uncaused Cause.

Quote:Understand, I am not looking for an actual answer to this question, because there is none. And that's the point.

There is no answer in relation to your private god because you've given him a particular set of attributes which preclude an answer. But if I carry the thought experiment with Yahweh, Allah and the Trinity there is a coherent answer.

Quote:"God" would have had to come first, then make human beings for any of the explanations anyone ever gives for the reason for "God's" existence or purpose.

This again is where you are deining your own private god. But this logic fails even when we apply it to humans. If person P performs actions X, Y and Z it does not entail that X, Y and Z are the raison d'etre of P--they might be but they needn't be. If I make a paper aeroplane that isn't the purpose of my existence. By the same logic and also because scripture says otherwise, creation is not the reason or purpose of Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity's existence.

Quote:But "God", if he exist, should have an explanation for existing separate from anything related to humans.

Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah do have such an explanation.

Quote:If the only way "God's" existence could be explained, by the believer, in relation to humans, and not for separate unrelated reason to humans, then the only reason, there for the only way, "God" could exist, even if "he" were real, would be if "he" created humans.

But that isn't the way Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah's existence are justified.

Quote:So if "God's" existence is predicated on humans being created, then "God" had no choice about creating humans. Thus not all powerful.

In all three monotheistic faiths creation is entirely contingent, the god in each case chose to create for one reason or another and none of those reasons were necessary.

Quote:However, that does not make sense even if "God" was actually real. So either "God" would need some explanation to his existence (and my question is, what would that be?),

In this case you are merely asking "what created God?", "How did God come to exist?" etc. in a very convoluted manner.

Quote:having no context to humans, or if creation of humans is the only way to explain "God" then "he" could never have existed in the first place, so any answer based on human beings would not answer the question at all, and misses the point of the question.

That is a characteristic of your private god so you can tell whatever story you like about him.

Quote:Of course, I already realize it's a fatal question, in that there is no "God" there for no answer. But it's a logic puzzle, a koan.

It's not a logic puzzle. What you have done is offered your audience a language game that they are familiar with (or at least can become familiar with by virtue of its publication), i.e. Christian god talk. But then you have ushered your audience into a different language game, i.e. private god talk; which we can't really play because we have no information about your private god. Then by coincidence someone arrives that has the same misunderstanding about the Trinity as you do--i.e. shares in the initially private god by chance--and you play a language game with him (Stevil). That is all fine but it is pointless on a discussion forum (and your dissatisfaction with most of the replies corroborates that). If you want to play a Christian god talk language game that is fine, we can all refer to the Bible and theology texts to understand how he is defined and play accordingly. But you can't advertise a Christian god talk game and then play a language game about an idiosyncratic god and then complain that you are being misunderstood or claim that you have created/discovered some profound aporia.

cool

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 07:50 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 07:38 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  ...I find that the concept of a god only makes sense in a human context, as soon as you look at the natural world as a whole or take the entire universe, god becomes a ludicrous idea...

Exactly my point. The point is that it cannot be reconciled to make sense outside of human context, which is damning evidence that it's man made. And that's the first and most important leap I would need to make to even began to considering any validity of a "God" concept. If you can't get past the plausibility of a "God" existing in the first place, than nothing that follows from that concept matters. It would be interesting to hear a reasonable explanation from a theist for this question. That will never happen though.

Thanks, Paranoidsam!


I hear Christians all the time cite bible scripture as proof, and I always explain, they are jumping way ahead of themselves. They need to explain how there could even be a "God" first before that book could even be anything other than a book. And if you can do that, then we have the nest leap of getting to, even if there is a "God", how does that get this version of "God" in this book in particular, and not any of the others..

Also its apparent that if God exists, then triviality is his one and only concern.

The supposed creator of the universe is unable to prevent a tsunami, yet he's happy to help your football team out... And this is where my argument comes from, that in our neat little worlds where our main concern is how bad the traffic is on the way to work, and whether or not you win on the horses, God may appear to be working either for or against you, because these kinds of things vary from day to day. So when you say a little prayer in the hope your horse wins, you might well believe it had an effect.

But, if the news reports a tsunami headed your way, all the prayers in the world won't stop it. Which just goes to show, that God was never there anyway.

Some of the most devout people find their faith diminished when a real crisis hits. When disaster strikes the natural human reaction is to turn and run... Natural selection will prove that those who run are more likely to survive than those who drop to their knees and pray.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
13-10-2013, 10:35 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 09:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Both you and Stevil are inventing your own god--and that isn't a problem per se--and then asking others to explicate some detail about your god and then complaining that the detail provided by others is inconsistent with your god.
Is the Abrahamic god supposed to be transcendant of Space and Time?
Does this mean that the Abrahamic god already knows everything thus is incapable of learning something new, is incapable of being surprised?
If this is the belief, then what is it that the god itself gets out of being "alive"? It would seem to me, that it would have no joy but only endless tedium.
If this is incorrect then please elaborate what value this god would get from its own life?
(13-10-2013 09:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:So in that light, why would "God" exist in the first place?

Because he is the only necessary existent, the "Alpha and the Omega". He is the uncaused Cause.
This is terribly circular.
The god exists so that it can create existence.
Now lets instead just assume that in the begining there is an all knowing, all powerful, uncaused god but no existence. The god does not need to create existence. In fact there is no point in it creating existence because it has nothing to gain from existence, nothing to learn, nothing to be surprised about, it already knows everything, so there is no point, from the god's point of view to create existence.
If the god does not have to create existence then the god does not have to necessarily exist. So it exists anyway (we are assuming this), but the question remains, why does it exist? What is the point to its existence? What value does it get out of existing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
13-10-2013, 10:49 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
Theists have no problem with the almighty, all powerful, all knowing God being "uncaused", but suggest that the unconscious, dead universe may have come from nothing and they shit bricks.

As we can all see for selves, the universe is by no means perfect (depending your definition of perfection), and so you have to wonder why a perfect god would create something less perfect, only to punish us for the shortcomings he built into us. As always Christopher Hitchens says it best.... "Created sick, and commanded to be well..."

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
13-10-2013, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 11:16 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 10:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 09:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Because he is the only necessary existent, the "Alpha and the Omega". He is the uncaused Cause.
This is terribly circular.
The god exists so that it can create existence.

I'm not certain, but I think he wasn't really saying "God" exist to create existence. Which would be very circular if that is what he means, which is why I dismissed it as a valid answer in my last post.

I think what he is actually saying is: "God" exist, because he does. Which if that's what he's saying, that's still not an answer. Either way, not an answer.

(13-10-2013 10:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Now lets instead just assume that in the begining there is an all knowing, all powerful, uncaused god but no existence. The god does not need to create existence. In fact there is no point in it creating existence because it has nothing to gain from existence, nothing to learn, nothing to be surprised about, it already knows everything, so there is no point, from the god's point of view to create existence.
If the god does not have to create existence then the god does not have to necessarily exist. So it exists anyway (we are assuming this), but the question remains, why does it exist? What is the point to its existence? What value does it get out of existing?

Again, nailed the point. But I would add to "his" list of reasons for not creating existence, the fact that his ability to imagine all possible realities would be no less vivid in "God's" mind than if "he" actually did create it. After all, if "God" couldn't experience the uncreated existence as realistically and as detailed in his mind as if it were real, then "he" would not be all knowledgeable. So, if in his own mind he could experience it just the same as if "he" actually made it, then there would be no reason to go ahead and do it, because there would be no difference in "his" experience of it in reality or in "his" thoughts.

Plus, "he" would be able to experience every infinite version and infinite slight variations of that and all infinite possible uncreated realities, no different than had "he" actually done them. If there was a single detail of any of that he couldn't imagine and experience, in his mind, in exactly the same detail as if it were real, then he is not all knowledgeable. But if "he" is all knowledgeable, then he can. So, not only why go ahead and create any of it if "he" can experience it all in his mind as though it happened, but why care about out comes in it. "He" wouldn't need to test people to know if a person loves him or not, which still makes not sense to me for an all "omni" "God" to need, because "he" would know exactly every scenario in which a person would reject him, and every scenario in which a person would turn to "him", so there would be no reason for him to care.

Even if "he" were real, "he" would know every scenario necessary for me to believe in "him" and everyone for me not to, or for a theist to believe or not to. To him, all that don't believe, also do in a great many other infinite scenarios of reality, and those who believe don't believe in many other infinite scenarios of reality, and "he" would know and experience them all in "his" mind as though there were just as real as reality, so why would he care, if in this one particular scenario a person believes or doesn't when "he" would know of infinite ways they would and wouldn't as real and no different than as if they had happened, It would make "him" no difference.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
13-10-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 10:25 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  ...
Some of the most devout people find their faith diminished when a real crisis hits. ...

And yet, oddly enough, others still will turn more to faith the more that disasters and crisis happen. A friend became more religious when her husband was diagnosed with cancer just after she became pregnant with their first, and only, child, and he died just months after is daughters birth.

Sometimes events like this, which should shake one's faith, draw them in more. The have this need for it to have a purpose, or meaning. And a chance to have it corrected in a make believe after live.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: What’s the point of “God”?
(13-10-2013 12:37 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  My question is not, why did “God” create us, or how was “God” made. My question is, why? What is the purpose of a “God”, in the first place, universe aside. A universe, without a “god”, doesn’t require an explanation of why. How maybe, but not a why.

Good question to ask and of course there isn't a logical answer, the supernatural precludes logic.

The god as envisioned by the faithful "exists" not for its own sake but for theirs.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: