main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

A Logical Look at the Existence (or Non-Existence) of God.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lady Viskor, Nov 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    The point of the thread is to be logical, not to offer our beliefs and then argue for them, correct? Because beliefs of this nature are inherently illogical, and we are trying to find in logic a common ground. Right? Please correct me if that's not what differentiates this thread from the many debating religion.

    That said, I'm going to address your response with logic.

    You said: "However, I trust that the way things were done was what God found was best for us."

    Logically, if he is omnipotent, there is technically no "best for us" because the very idea of comparisons becomes invalid - it's like saying there are infinite numbers, but 3 is the very best number. There is simply no basis for comparison within an infinite system. That's the grounds on which I am logically challenging the assumption of an omnipotent God existing.

    You said: "A painting is most moving when the artist puts all his emotion in it, no?"

    Only from our emotion-based perception. I can certainly imagine a world where knowledge and wisdom is fulfilling and emotion doesn't exist. (The best challenge to this idea is that "fulfillment" is in itself an emotion, but I don't think so: it could simply be a realization.)

    Take for example, if God had left the color red out of his palette, how much less we would see, as colors made in combination of red, blue, green, white, and black, would not exist either.

    Again, you're assuming duality is a prerequistite for existence. If God is omnipotent, he can create a universe in which we are able to perceive a thing without first perceiving its opposite. For example, did we first identify air because we experienced vaccuum, the absolute lack of air, the opposite of air? No, we perceived it because of wind, which is certainly not the opposite of air. It is an aspect of air. Love begins as need, not as the opposite of hate.

    You said: "If we were content would we even want to better ourselves, as no matter what we did we would be happy anyway so why even do anything to change things? "

    You know, I'm going to step way out and make an assertion I passionately believe that you may find absurd: this is the core assumption that has held mankind back from enlightenment/redemption from the beginning. It is the assumption that suffering* is needed for growth. The only religion I've studied that offers an alternative, and therefore hopeful, view is Buddhism: in our very struggling against suffering, we create conflict, and conflict is the essence of suffering. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Suffering begets more suffering, nothing else.

    *By suffering, I mean needless and unnatural pain, such as abuse and injustice. I believe that the mere challenges life presents - coping with mortality, loss, and disappointment - provide more than enough reason for us to work on achievement.

    Since no one has ever not suffered, I definitely can't prove that a suffering-free world would not be stagnant. But it has been my experience that people are more creative and loving when they are not suffering, and this is not due to their perception of the suffering of others. They simply want to share their joy because that makes it even more joyful. Joy can be a self-perpetuating cycle, too. We have been brainwashed into believing we must suffer for the greater good. How good can the greater good be, if suffering is intended to be a part of it?

    Remember, I am talking about suffering in terms of needless pain. There are two kinds of pain: pain that builds character, and pain that erodes it. Child molestation is an example of character-eroding pain, as it not only harms the child but also causes the child to act out against himself and others later on. The pain of watching a loved one die is an example of character-building pain, as we learn to appreciate even more those loved ones still alive.





    Something to keep in mind about me, if you are interested in knowing the perspective of the person you are debating with: I don't believe that God exists or doesn't exist. I b
     
  2. scum&villainy

    scum&villainy Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 1999
    Interesting points, Treecave.

    "have any of you ever considered that some people believe in a malevolent God that mankind would be better off without? Are we including that sort of "existence of God" in our discussion?"

    Reminds me of the Pitch Black quote:
    "I absolutely believe in God... and I absolutely hate the ****"


    The point I would raise is how many unnecessary or destructive obstacles are placed in our way - seemingly, if such is your belief, by this al;l-powerful, omnipotent Creator?

    Why were anti-biotics not discovered until the 20th century? How many millions pf people were allowed to die by a God who knew of their existence but revealed nothing to anyone? How much pain could he have saved if he had revealed anti-biotics as the 11th Commandment? Or told Noah to keep mouldy cheese on the Ark? But he didn't.

    How much pain would have been avoided if the Creator had created a world where droughts and monsoons and tropical storms and tornados did not wreak havoc?

    Why not give man medical science from the beginning? If man became mortal, why was he not equipped with the knowledge to ease his condition from day One? Does God revel in man's mortality?

    How much suffering could have been avoided if technological advance had been developed earlier? Rather than a sudden explosion which lead to industrial revolution and ultimately imperialism and oppression, why did The Creator allow human kind to sit in a medieval swamp for thousands of years, trying to exist, only to then give inspiration to an elite? What about those poor sould who lived with relatively nothing?


    My concern is that this world is a cruel place. SOme of this cruelty is undoubtedly due to man's selfishness and wanton greediness. But some is not; much of the cruelty and suffering we find ourselves forced to deal with is due to the fact that we exist in this world. And that, for me, will always evidence against any kind of benevolent Creator.

    The sums do not add up.


    And the more we acheive for ourselves, about our beginnings, about the neuroscience of love, the less we need hazy, undefinable pseudobabble like "God=Love".
     
  3. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Or told Noah to keep mouldy cheese on the Ark?

    ROFL! This is a great point, though funny. The kosher laws were good advice on avoiding meat-borne toxins, so why not mention moldy cheese?

    Yes, I see these things as evidence against either a benevolent or omnipotent god. If these is a god, he is either not omnipotent and this is the best he's managed to do so far, or he's omnipotent but does not concern himself with our well-being. Or he may be neither omnipotent nor benevolent.
     
  4. LadyElaine

    LadyElaine Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Okay, first off, thank you to Space_Man for pointing me to this thread. God knows I needed a new thread about God. ;)

    Second, thanks to Lady Viskor for kindly tying my brain into a Gordian knot with that first post.

    And now, onto the meat.

    So we're trying to define God, and do it logically? Ha! Although I try to treat religion and spirituality with reason, shying away from "blind faith," I gotta say that my beliefs don't really tend to be all that logical. So consider yourselves warned.

    First off, I don't think anyone can get much of anywhere without saying where they're coming from. I grew up an Episcopalian, but now that I'm a Unitarian Universalist, I'll go by the UU tradition of calling myself two opposing definitions: I'm an agnostic theist. (I'm also a hopeless optimist.)

    Now that I've defined myself, I think maybe I have half a chance of defining my belief in God in a way that may actually make some kind of twisted sense. Here goes nothing:

    God is not anthropomorphic. You cannot label God as "he" or "she," or even "it," without making God into some sort of being or entity. But God is a being or entity, right? Right?? Not for me. If there is a Supreme Consciousness, it's so far beyond my own that I might as well assume that it doesn't exist. So "God" as a Being just isn't there. (Hey, maybe I should go further and call myself an atheistic theist.)

    However, I still profess a belief in God. (See what I mean about not being rational?) In among my personal smorgasbord of beliefs is pantheism. God, for me, is the entire universe. It's possible that God didn't exist before the Big Bang. And I don't believe that Life (in whatever form) did, either--the Big Bang brought time and space into existence, and without time and space, nothing can exist. The whole of the universe, including this little ball of dust we call home, is God. If God has a will or a consciousness, it is that of the universe as a whole.

    Now stick human beings into the mix, and watch the trouble start. We're primates, which means we are naturally curious; we have an instinctive urge to explore. This exploratory urge is so strong that we even apply it to nonphysical realms. Where did we come from? What happens after we die? Who or what caused the world to come into being? All these questions have been answered, time out of mind, by pointing to the gods. They did it, it's all Their fault, blame Them.

    But because my God is a pantheistic God, now that humans are around, God has become anthropomorphic. (Yeah. Logical. Riiiiight.) Each and every one of us is God, or at least part of God. Christianity isn't too hard a stretch for me these days; I can certainly believe that God became human: God is human in all of us.

    I think that human God is the God most theists focus on. That God is what impels us to feel guilty for not loving our neighbor enough, to give toys to charities at Christmas, to forgive each other even when we've gone past the point of forgiveness. That human God is the God of love. And that God is who we point to in our anger when the world seems to go wrong. Where was God in the Holocaust? Where was God on September 11th? Where was God when my father abandoned me?

    And so now I go back to pantheism. God is the supernova that becomes a stellar nursery. God is the apple seed that will grow into a new tree. But God is also the earthquakes, and droughts, and hurricanes, and forest fires that kill hundreds of thousands of people. God is red in tooth and claw.

    Now that I've succeeded in confusing even myself, I'll finish this by saying that, though I don't believe in the Judaio-Christian version of God, I do believe that there is something greater than any of us. It's in us, and of us, and all around us. (It's duct tape! It has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the universe together!)

    To paraphrase Carl Sagan (and probably make him spin in his grave), God is both grander and more subtle than any of us can ever imagine.
     
  5. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    it is not logical to believe something exists without evidence suggesting it.

    the end.
     
  6. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    So we're trying to define God, and do it logically? Ha!

    Actually - and this is a lesser challenge, thankfully - we're looking at the logical support (or lack thereof) for God's existence. To DO that, of course, we need some definition as to the nature of what god we're looking for the existence of. We need a description of this god we're looking for in order to find whether there is logical support or not. I hope I've made this clear without sounding like major oversimplification. (Point is, I don't think God needs to be defined logically - imagine if I asked "Let's logically prove or disprove that my friend Dean exists". You'd need a description of Dean by which to recognize any information supporting his existence or lack thereof.)


    (Hey, maybe I should go further and call myself an atheistic theist.)

    I know how you feel. LOL!

    The whole of the universe, including this little ball of dust we call home, is God.

    Then by your definition, God logically exists. You have looked at the universe, found God within, and labelled "everything" God. There's nothing illogical about that, it's not even something to prove or disprove. It's definitely an unfounded conclusion - you can't support it with, say, scientific measurements demonstrating everything is God. But it's not illogical in the philosophical sense.

    Epic seems to be saying the same thing.
     
  7. LadyElaine

    LadyElaine Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 25, 2002
    The problem with God and logic is that God is subjective, not objective. Sure, a group of people can get together to talk about God, and they may even agree on a lot of points. But their individual experiences will also have them in disagreement over a lot of things.

    A group of people can't get together and have a philosophical discussion about, say, gravity. It's there, it's provable, I jump up and I fall down. It doesn't give me spiritual guidance, nor do I shake my fist at gravity when I fall down and skin my knee. Gravity is objective; everyone can agree that gravity exists--except for radical theorists, and even they have to come up with something that acts just like gravity. But a person who decides to disbelieve in God does not necessarily have to figure out something that acts like God in order for that something to take God's place.

    From subjective experience, I can tell you my thoughts about God. I cannot objectively tell you anything about God, and so I can never be completely logical about God: because logic must be true between everyone.
     
  8. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    epic: But, is "belief" ever truly logical? I think, by definition, a belief is something that isn't always necessarily reasonable...no?
     
  9. Diverjkc

    Diverjkc Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 9, 2002
    I feel that "God" dosn't "exist" per se.
    You "exist", I "exist", your chair "exists", this computer "exists", do you really want to say that God "exists". In my life I have been strugeling with this question for some time now.

    They say that all myths have a basis in fact. But what about facts that you can't understand. What causes the weather? Why is fire hot? What are the lights in the sky? Ask these questions to someone that has no knowledge of modern sience and you will get one of two answers. One answer is "God made it that way" or "God does it". The other answer is that they think too hard and their head explodes.

    I beleave in God. But I don't beleave that God is the all-inclusive that acient cultures made (I am going to say "him" for lack of a better word) out to be. I beleave that God sat down basic rules of nature and science, then he sat back to watch.

    Our minds are so basic that we can only think about and be confused by the concept of God. Take creation out of the picture, go back in time to right before the Big-Bang. Ask yourself where this mass came from. You say "God made it", OK, now where did God come from? Now there is no answer. IMO, this is the essence of religion, of God, or Alla, or Brahman, or whatever you want to call it. The mystery of "where did it come from" is why we wonder.

    Now, I have also confused my self, again. Let me ask one more question. I feel that it is related to the topic at hand. While you are asking "Does God exist?", I ask "Why do we exist?" If it is for no other reason than to worship a supream being, I think that that being would make its presence known more often, to remind us of why we are here. If it is for some other reason, then what is it?
     
  10. scum&villainy

    scum&villainy Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 1999
    When we start introducing psychology, though, the theistic argument becomes less convincing.

    I sort of have faith. I want to believe that there's an all-powerful force looking out for me and those I love. I hope that good deeds are eternally rewarded and evil ones eternally punished.

    But I'm also very aware of why I want these things -- why my frail mind needs the comfort provided by that protective umbrella. I can understand why religion was such an important crutch for less developed peoples, and why its influence has diminished as scientific knowledge advances. I can accept that my wanting a benevolent deity and my hoping that this big old hill of beans means anything is a sign that I'm uncomfortable with a universe that was built of chance and has no purpose. But that doesn't mean it's actually worth anything -- it just means I'm human...and it's pretty obvious that humans have an almost inherent need or desire for divinity. This is most likely a direct psychological result of our increased mental ability; self-awareness of consciousness has a lot to answer for.
     
  11. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    Space_Man: But, is "belief" ever truly logical? I think, by definition, a belief is something that isn't always necessarily reasonable...no?

    i agree.

    as far as defining hat god is... there's a distinct difference between the christian loving, personal, caring god -- described with some kind of conscious awareness of who he is and whatnot, and the more mystical "god is the universe" speel, giving existence, or the big bang or somethng the label of "god". the former is illogical, the latter, IMO, is a case of clouding the issue with misused terminology.
     
  12. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Don't forget fear of death as a prime psychological reason for adopting a religious belief system. Christianity offers some insulation against this most fundamental of all human anxieties. Accept Jesus as your savior and live forever.

    Of course, it's possible, and perhaps more reasonable, to believe in a divine creator without also believing in an afterlife - but as we've seen from other threads, most people believe in the one to gain access to the soothing benefits of the other.
     
  13. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Jabbadabbado: I would add that, stemming from a religious belief system, people are likewise given the hope of getting to see deceased loved-ones at some point...but, remember, a logical look at religion is one thing -- a logical look at whether or not "God" exists, is a very different discussion!
     
  14. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    A group of people can't get together and have a philosophical discussion about, say, gravity.

    Actually, there's a philosopher who said just because gravity has always worked before does NOT give one logical grounds for assuming it will always work in the future. You cannot logically prove the negative that nothing will ever go up without also coming down.

    So, yeah, philosophy can bend ANYTHING, however concrete, into Froot Loops. :p




    As for psychology, we just transfer our worship to other things as we develop. Now we can hope the government protects us instead of God, the medicines grant our health and miracles... someday technology may even provide a bona fide rain god of sorts. You'll note that loss of faith in government and the rise of religion often coincide. There was a huge swelling of religious belief after 9/11 because it evidenced that the government could not take care of us. So many people reverted to worshipping a mystical entity that you at least can't prove doesn't protect us.
     
  15. eaglejedi

    eaglejedi Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 2, 2001
    Actually, Christmas also just happens to coincide with a Roman festival called Saturnalia. Roles of masters and slaves would be reversed within the household, to a limited extent, and slaves would be given a small allowance of money, to go enjoy themselves, and citizens would exchange gifts with family and friends.

    I thought Mithraism became important in the Mediterranean after the Roman Empire split into two halves. Which is not to say that certain Persian influences are not present in Christianity, alongside Greco-Roman elements.


    Is it logical to assume that something that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, considers itself, or is in any sense, an individual? As in, a being, with an individual mind/consciousness? How could this be true, if this element is present in all other living things, and everything else?
     
  16. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Maybe Gods are a species that propogate by creating universes with all the starting properties necessary to eventually produce intelligent life forms which, given time, will develop the know-how to create their own universe with the starting properties necessary to eventually produce intelligent life...
     
  17. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    That actually makes sense to me. Goes nicely with the theories that gods are actually alien beings of such an advanced evolutionary level that they boggled the heck out of early human minds.
     
  18. Jahithophel

    Jahithophel Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Hi all,

    Good thread. People seem to be keeping their cool and the posts have been engaging. However, I?m not going to respond to anything aside from the subject of the threat mostly because I think that when atheists and theists debate concerning the existence of God both sides place too much emphasis on logic. Both sides claim that there is so much evidence for their particular opinions that the opposing side must be silly not to adopt it.

    The problem with logic is that it only works given a certain set of assumptions. Is the belief in God, in and of itself, logical? No, not really. Neither is it illogical. He's simply one of the assumptions we build on. I'll give an example using the experience of a friend of mine.

    My friend (we'll call him Jack) did not believe in God. His girlfriend did. They were driving from Los Angeles to Denver and right around the middle of no where their car stopped. After trying to start it numerous times Jack got all pissed off because neither one of their cell phones worked and neither one of them knew much about auto mechanics. Jack's girl (uh, Betty) insisted that they pray. Of course Jack didn't want to but Betty insisted and since Betty was really really good looking, he decided to placate her. So they prayed. Low and behold, the car starts up and they drive the rest of the way to Denver. This was the beginning of Jack's faith.

    So the question is this: Is Jack's faith in God logical? Let's break down the factual events. 1) the car broke down and would not start up after repeated attempts. 2) Jack and Betty prayed for the car to start. 3) The car then started. It seems to me that yes, Jack's faith in God is logical. Does it prove the existence of God? No. But if this is where his faith originated then I believe we can't fault him for believing because the outcome logically allowed for the assumption to be valid. Since then, under Jack?s new assumption that there is a God, he has been given repeated verification of a God acting in his life.

    Conversely, many people do not believe in God or at the very least are unsure if He exists. They look at the current state of the world with all its suffering and bloodshed. Perhaps their own lives are miserable, bankrupt, etc. and wonder ?How could a loving God exist in the face of so much pain?? Is it logical to believe that there is no God? Sure, and that logic only serves to reinforce the basic assumption.

    What it really comes down to then is the attractiveness of our basic assumptions. Is it more tempting to believe in a loving, personal God who has an interest in our lives, to give them purpose and longevity (eternal life) or to believe that there is no God, that the pointless suffering of life is exactly that--pointless; we live and die an immeasurably minuscule blip of time.

    I cannot speak for the whole of Christianity, I don't know how it works in everyone's lives, but in my life I have taken the assumption that there is a God and have repeatedly had that assumption reaffirmed.

    Some atheists complain that God doesn't give us much of a choice. Love Him or die. Because this doesn?t make much use of free will they reject the idea of God altogether. They're right, the choices are considerably limited, but the choices left to atheists are even more one sided. The atheist can only die. I'm not speaking in terms of God's condemnation. I mean that from an atheistic point of view, in an life that does not allow for the possibility of God, there's is absolutely nothing else to look forward to. No matter how virtuous or debase an atheist lives it all ends with death. To believe in atheism is to believe in predestination--death. There's just no other option.

    God gives us a choice: We can get to know the guy who created us, who wants to give us a purpose for living, can give us eternal life to make sure we're around to enjoy it OR we can choose to die.

    Personally, I find the whole God assumption much more attractive.


     
  19. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    What it really comes down to then is the attractiveness of our basic assumptions. Is it more tempting to believe in a loving, personal God who has an interest in our lives, to give them purpose and longevity (eternal life) or to believe that there is no God, that the pointless suffering of life is exactly that--pointless; we live and die an immeasurably minuscule blip of time.

    funny i've used the exact point to criticise christianity.

    Personally, I find the whole God assumption much more attractive.

    of course you do.
     
  20. Jahithophel

    Jahithophel Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Eric

    I'm not sure how a loving, personal God who has an interest in our lives, to give them purpose and longevity (eternal life) is a criticism on Christianity, unless the problem is it's just to good to be true. Please explain.

    Also, if you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate on how atheism proposes a more attractive prospective of life and death.

    I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to hear the opposing arguments... free exchange of ideas and all.
     
  21. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    They're right, the choices are considerably limited, but the choices left to atheists are even more one sided. The atheist can only die.

    That's categorically incorrect, but a typical misunderstanding of atheism. You're not alone in making it.

    Lots of atheists believe in the so-called supernatural. Still more believe quantum physics is the beginning of our discovery of exactly why your friend's car started up when he prayed (and there are many equally logical possibilities - even potentially measurable ones - besides "Oh, God answered!"). And finally, don't forget Buddhism and Taoism are both atheistic religions. No shortage of "what happens when you die" ideas in Buddhism. Not to mention a much stricter system of reward and punishment for hurtful and helpful behavior. No simple set of Commandments guides you through Buddhism.

    In short, atheists can believe in anything they want or find sensible. They just don't ascribe it all to some theoretical God, when there are plenty of other theories equally valid to explain any "evidence" of such an entity's existence.
     
  22. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Jahithophel:
    I hesitate to speak on epic's behalf, but let me try. I think the point is that when one believes in: a caring God, eternal life, etc., those beliefs serve to alleviate suffering. But it's all just a matter of perception; has your suffering really been alleviated by a Divine power, or have you just found a way to psychologically console yourself -- quite independent of any God-like force?

    ...could you elaborate on how atheism proposes a more attractive prospective of life and death.

    My opinion only, but: an atheist has a unique value for life in the here & now; for an atheist, there won't be any kind of forthcoming redemption or salvation. I think the atheist is uniquely motivated to cherish life, and perhaps resolve conflicts in a more immediate manner.

    How'd I do, epic?!? ;)
     
  23. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    God is an entity conjured up by humans to satisfy the need for themselves to be a part of something significant. I think Epic was making this point, though I don't wan't to classify his views since I just skimmed this thread.

    This would also explain why many religions are so similar.

     
  24. GrandDesigner

    GrandDesigner Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Greetings and let me say that this will be a short post, for now, but I'll post more later. I'll just pop off a few thoughts in response to a couple phrases that caught my eye in the opening post. Good topic, though, Lady Viskor. I have read the stated rules and will just add my point of view. This and my next post are not intended personally or negatively. So if anyone sees them as negative or takes them personally, I ask them to take a second and read whatever again knowing that. Hmm, I will preface, however, that I do tend to call humans "evolved monkeys" or "evolved primates" in general and thats not directed at anyone in particular.

    Many arguments arise about the existence of God due largely to the fact that he/she/it cannot be seen, or heard. God's presence cannot be proven because there is no emperical evidence.


    I will say that the beauty of it all is that even if God was replying to your topic and you were reading it, word for word, you wouldn't believe it anyways, would you?

    Some would say they need some kind of proof to be certain God exists. But they fail to realize that a God doing such a display is little more than a dog, or God backwards, being asked to perform tricks. Noone likes the idea of doing things because they've been ordered to. This is not to say God cannot or does not perform tricks all the time. But dont expect to see it.

    I noted some introducing themselves in their posts. I hope noone minds if I do the same even though some know Me already. I am Grand Designer. Sometimes at the end of a post, I'll use an acronym someone gave me after I signed my name as Grand ol Designer. It amused me and, hence, at times, I do sign my posts or responses with GoD. However, I do also like a hyphen at times which comes out as G-D.

    Be well and I'll post more later when I have more....time.

    Grand-Designer
     
  25. Dark Lady Mara

    Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 1999
    Jahithophel:
    I hesitate to speak on epic's behalf, but let me try. I think the point is that when one believes in: a caring God, eternal life, etc., those beliefs serve to alleviate suffering. But it's all just a matter of perception; has your suffering really been alleviated by a Divine power, or have you just found a way to psychologically console yourself -- quite independent of any God-like force?


    Indeed. I pretty much agree with epic's point - the idea of an anthropomorphized, all-caring god is hard for me to accept because it seems like the sort of thing people would want to believe in so badly they'd dream it into existence. Arguments of convenience neither prove nor disprove anything, of course, but the low probabilities that convenience and reality will coincide have to be taken into mind.

    As my introduction for myself, I'll say I am a theist, but not that kind of theist.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.