God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Palomar · 2003-01-16 16:02:03

BUMP

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 16:06:59

Hi Cindy.

That was Proudhon who later denounced God, after quoting Voltaire.

clark, Prudhon says that man can expect very little from God. He reiterates this point quite vigorously. He's just saying that God is fine, but the Religious God, is not, since religions build constructs ?for God,? and such is the impossible, since we can't know God, and since every construct for God, is a construct for Man.

You triumphed, and no one dared to contradict you, when, after having tormented in his body and in his soul the righteous Job, a type of our humanity, you insulted his candid piety, his prudent and respectful ignorance. We were as naught before your invisible majesty, to whom we gave the sky for a canopy and the earth for a footstool. And now here you are dethroned and broken. Your name, so long the last word of the savant, the sanction of the judge, the force of the prince, the hope of the poor, the refuge of the repentant sinner,--this incommunicable name, I say, henceforth an object of contempt and curses, shall be a hissing among men. For God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and misery; God is evil. As long as humanity shall bend before an altar, humanity, the slave of kings and priests, will be condemned; as long as one man, in the name of God, shall receive the oath of another man, society will be founded on perjury; peace and love will be banished from among mortals. God, take yourself away! for, from this day forth, cured of your fear and become wise, I swear, with hand extended to heaven, that you are only the tormentor of my reason, the spectre of my conscience.

I deny, therefore, the supremacy of God over humanity; I reject his providential government, the non-existence of which is sufficiently established by the metaphysical and economical hallucinations of humanity,--in a word, by the martyrdom of our race; I decline the jurisdiction of the Supreme Being over man; I take away his titles of father, king, judge, good, merciful, pitiful, helpful, rewarding, and avenging. All these attributes, of which the idea of Providence is made up, are but a caricature of humanity, irreconcilable with the autonomy of civilization, and contradicted, moreover, by the history of its aberrations and catastrophes. Does it follow, because God can no longer be conceived as Providence, because we take from him that attribute so important to man that he has not hesitated to make it the synonym of God, that God does not exist, and that the theological dogma from this moment is shown to be false in its content?

Alas! no. A prejudice relative to the divine essence has been destroyed; by the same stroke the independence of man is established: that is all. The reality of the divine Being is left intact, and our hypothesis still exists.

clark · 2003-01-16 16:19:35

Yet I can't help feeling that Prodhun is making the same fundamental mistake that I point out earlier, a personal concept of God not meeting our preconceived expectations.

By declaring that the Religious God is false, he assumes again to know the mind of God. By pointing to the inconsistonsies within the religion, he hopes to demonstrate how God could not exsist, or if he does, is so far from our idea of what is "good" as to be the epitomy of what it is the worst. Again, this assumes that God shouldn't be inconsistent- and perhaps God shouldn't be, but the fact remains that it is far from our ability to determine this.

He makes a well sounded argument, and it is hard to find fault with it in essences. Yet the fact remains that he is assuming to know what God is.

That's why I keep coming back to my seemingly contradictory stance- All religions are correct, and wrong at the same time. The belief that there is no God, a God, or several Gods, is all fundamentaly the same.

At every point we assume beyond what we can know. All we can know is that God is, or God isn't. Everything else is just a guess.

soph · 2003-01-16 16:30:46

you explain to me how a "reasonable, merciful, and just God" could let people be starved, raped, burned, tortured, exterminated, beaten, and on and on, for no reason other than that they were jewish.

how could a God let a race die? This is a perfectly rational conclusion, and I think you are belittling it to a horrific degree. Please read the book first.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-16 16:31:01

The question is, can there be a construct for God which is not a construct for man? You clearly say no, and so does Proudhon. A defined God is fallible.

clark · 2003-01-16 16:43:51

you explain to me how a "reasonable, merciful, and just God" could let people be starved, raped, burned, tortured, exterminated, beaten, and on and on, for no reason other than that they were jewish.

Reasonable by whose standards?
Merciful by whose standards?
Just by whose standards?

What is reasonable? Give me a rule that will define "reasonable" in all instance, for all things.

It's not my job to explain how your expectations of God are not being met. It's up to you to realize that you have an expectation of God that apparently dosen't mesh with your understanding of reality. Is the failure on your part, or on God's?

If you say God, once again you assume that God should behave as you deem Him to. Should God behave as we like, or as God is?

just becuase we think God shopuld do this, or he shouldn't allow that, dosen't mean a #### thing. That is OUR desire. Our wish which is based on some preconceived idea, and not on objective fact or any kind of reason.

We can reason that either God is, or God isn't. Anything beyond that is merely speculative and is not based on any evidence- it's nothing more than an opinion.

soph · 2003-01-16 16:49:18

Ah, but you misunderstand. I expect nothing from God, because I don't believe in God.

Even if he does, yes, this would not meet my expectations, and I would not deem such a God worthy of worship.

clark · 2003-01-16 17:01:42

I expect nothing from God, because I don't believe in God.

I don't believe in Eskimos. So, do Eskimos exsist then?

Even if he does, yes, this would not meet my expectations, and I would not deem such a God worthy of worship.

So God must behave as you deem He should (if He does exsist)?

Your statements are indicitive of an ego-centric world. ???

soph · 2003-01-16 17:05:40

Your argument is laughable.

I do not go out and propogate my ideas while slapping down others, as you do. I state my own beliefs without forcing them on anyone else. So having a belief is inherently ego-centric? I've got to stop having opinions then...

And eskimos-well, inuit if you want to be correct, do exist, and have been physically seen and proven to exist unlike God. I have never seen God, but I have seen an Inuit.

For me to worship God, yes, I believe he should behave as I expect him to. If not, my faith would be a little shallow, wouldnt it? I would be ashamed if I blindly worshipped a cruel, and unjust (IN MY VIEW) God.

Ego-centric? Look in the mirror.

clark · 2003-01-16 17:15:35

I do not go out and propogate my ideas while slapping down others, as you do.

i apoligize. I test my ideas, and others. Please do not take this personaly, but I assume that if you share your ideas you do so for an exchange. I assume you wouldn't want to think in error, I know I don't. So I point out the errors I perceive.

So having a belief is inherently ego-centric?

No, having a ego-centric belief is inherently ego-centric.
You stated that God should conform to how YOU think He should behave. That is the epitomy of ego-centric. I in no way placed a value on that description, it was merely pointing out what your "beliefs" denote about you.

And eskimos-well, inuit if you want to be correct, do exist, and have been physically seen and proven to exist unlike God. I have never seen God, but I have seen an Inuit.

Many people throughout history have stated that they have seen God. I have never seen an Inuit. So tell me, just becuase *I* don't see something, does that make it not real?

that was the point I was making regarding the Eskimo, and it also demonstrates how you have an ego-centric world view.

For me to worship God, yes, I believe he should behave as I expect him to.

Why should God behave as YOU expect Him to?

I would be ashamed if I blindly worshipped a cruel, and unjust (IN MY VIEW) God.

How would you determine if God was unjust or cruel?

soph · 2003-01-16 17:34:37

There is nothing ego-centric about my belief.

Would you worship a god that allows such things as the holocaust to happen? Don't blast me for holding such things up as unjust and cruel. You judge things callously as if they are minor events to be postulated, and lament people for losing faith because of them. There is nothing arrogant in losing faith because of genocide.

Why is this ego-centric? Because I have determined that I believe God does not exist? I never said I was right, so your whole ego-centric spiel is, to put it lightly, pointless. I am entitled to believe what I want, without being deemed as arrogant. Is it any less ego-centric to set up a Church to preach about God, because you believe he exists?

I never said God should conform to my view, I said that I would not worship a God that went against my views. Read what I said, dont extrapolate whats not there to support your arguments.

If you have never seen an Eskimo, there is nothing ego-centric about not believing in their existence. Again, this anecdote is pointless. If somebody said Bigfoot exists, and they saw him, would me doubting Bigfoot's existence be ego-centric? Certainly not.

clark · 2003-01-16 17:42:34

Would you worship a god that allows such things as the holocaust to happen?

You assume that God could do something about it, or that God SHOULD do something about it. Why should God prevent suffering?

There is nothing arrogant in losing faith because of genocide.

It is arrogant if you lose your faith becuase God does not act in a way you deem He should. It is arrogant to assume that you can know the mind of God when there is no evidence to support your views.

Why is this ego-centric? Because I have determined that I believe God does not exist?

It is ego-centric becuase you assume that if A god did exsist, it would, or should, conform to what you believe He should be. You are not allowing for the chance that your views are completely wrong.

Is it any less ego-centric to set up a Church to preach about God, because you believe he exists?

No, it is ego-centric if you set up a church to preach your version of God without any evidence to support your claims.

I never said God should conform to my view, I said that I would not worship a God that went against my views.

Ah, but you hold that a true god would confom to your views.

soph · 2003-01-16 17:54:13

Get off of this conform word. Let me put this in bold letters for you: I do not expect for God to conform to my views; however, if God does not meet my view of a just God, then I will not worship said God. If my parent abuses me, and no, Im not saying that God abuses me, but if my parent abuses me, must I worship my parents, as my creators? No, a cruel parent deserves no worship. This is my view.

If God were all powerful, as his name implies, then he would be able to do something about it. And yes, I assume he should do something, otherwise, I would not view him as a God worthy of worship.

A true God is based on perception. A Hindu "true God" would not be a Jewish "true God." So, for me, yes, a true God would possess the qualities that I have said. Again, would you worship a God that was cruel? Answer this quesiton please. And cruel using the morals that you would live by, no simantic bs please.

I wonder how you would react in Mr. Wiesel's position. I would not have faith in a God that allowed my brethren to be murdered, tortured, and exterminated. There is nothing arrogant about that.

Palomar · 2003-01-17 07:38:57

*When I was a wee lass, being raised in a strict fundamentalist Christian environment, I was taught for years that:

1. God is All.
2. Every thought one thinks is to be centered on God.
3. Every word one says is accountable to God and should reflect back to God's glory.
4. Every thought one has is monitored by God, and is to be pleasing to God.
5. Every action one has is to be just so that it turns out for God's glory and benefit.

Who is egocentric? Looks like God is!

Either the individual is allowed to be his or her own person, or they are not; either you are your own person or you are "owned" by some alleged superior supernatural being -- it all boils down to these 2 conflicting viewpoints.

It's funny how secular people are denounced as being "egocentric," yet in a religious context ::God's:: egocentrism is just "A-OK". And what's -really- interesting is that people who denounce their own egocentricism usually find themselves in a position to be exploited, controlled and manipulated by persons claiming to serve God.

Actually, I think everyone is egocentric (and it's not necessarily a "bad" thing). Doesn't egocentricism play a key role in the SURVIVAL INSTINCT? Or the REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT? Of course it does.

Of course, one could always renounce one's ego and identity over to the State. And history shows us where that leads (you, in the garbage bin).

Enough said.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-01-17 12:59:45

You know Soph, you're right.

That said, *I* don't think there is any proof that god exsists.
*I* don't think there is any proof that god dosen't exsist.

*I* think that anyone who trys to tell me that they are sure teither way is really trying to make themselves believe what they are saying.

The whole argument about religion is a moot point. You believe in something for reasons wholly owned by you. If you had evidence, no one would need to believe, they could just appraise the situation for themselves.

However, the problem arises, in my opinon, when two contradictory views meet. People can't handle the idea that there are multiple truths- their must be ONE that is right, that is true.

The truth is that God is, or God isn't. It is a complete and whole statement. There is no evidence, or hint of evidence to prove either way. If you understand this, then you should understand that any expectations of how a god should be are wholly created by the idividual.

Sure, people are taught to believe in this or that, but ultimatel you will make your own decisions- decide what you want to believe in. This is not God failing anyone, this is a process of people disgarding strategies for coping that no longer work.

Remember, religion is the product of our minds desire to understand the universe. To somehow effect control on the uncontrollable so we don't huddle in a cave for te rest of our lives.

That is the process. This is how we are built. This is how we think. That still dosen't mean that our ideas of God are false, it only means it is harder for us to objectively verify our beliefs.

God may very well be an #######, or god may very well be all goodness and forgiveness- but that is a seperate issue. What we think god *should* be is irrelevant to what god is. So you don't worship a god you feel is cruel- well, you are making a value judgement- that value judgment does not reduce the objective idea of God- that is my point. Even if God does fail to meet our expectations, he won't stop being "god". The failing is on our part becuase we have the wrong expectations.

Just becuase a parent fails a childs expectations dosen't change the reality that the parent is still the parent of the child.

I'm done unless someone has questions.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-17 14:39:55

Some of your posts in the drug thread seemed to disappear too. I suspect it's because 1) they threads are getting pretty big, and 2) something about the upgrade. Either way, the threads may need to be locked to prevent futher post losage. However, the ?missing post at the bottom of page? bug seems to just bee one of IkonBoard's ?features.?

I think everyone knows that one cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. But I think that one can argue that God, this being which is ultimately unprovable, can't take credit for virtues which exist in a scientific domain. Ie, Man's domain.

This is why, over the years, scientists have searched for God to no avail. They've been searching in a domain in which God doesn't exist.

God is on another plane. He's within you.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2003-01-16 16:02:03

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#202 2003-01-16 16:06:59

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#203 2003-01-16 16:19:35

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#204 2003-01-16 16:30:46

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#205 2003-01-16 16:31:01

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#206 2003-01-16 16:43:51

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#207 2003-01-16 16:49:18

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#208 2003-01-16 17:01:42

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#209 2003-01-16 17:05:40

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#210 2003-01-16 17:15:35

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#211 2003-01-16 17:34:37

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#212 2003-01-16 17:42:34

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#213 2003-01-16 17:54:13

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#214 2003-01-17 07:38:57

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#215 2003-01-17 12:59:45

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

#216 2003-01-17 14:39:55

Re: God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Board footer