Op/ED g/God, broken concept

[Haydn2]

'It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: 'You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?' I could tell you I've got superpowers. But I can't go up to people saying 'Prove I can't fly.' They'd go: 'What do you mean 'Prove you can't fly'? Prove you can!"

-Ricky Gervais

[greneknight]

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.



OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

You are quite right. You do make a lot of sense. I've only very recently started reading the Bible and theological books seriously because I was too young before that and I formulated an idea about God that I think must be the correct solution. God is for me a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice. He's not a being even though by convention and culture we use the personal pronoun. The Bible is violent and immoral because it was written by a band of marauding tribesmen. Imagine if Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun had written a holy book, it would very much resemble the Bible. That's how people of antiquity were like.

That idea of God fits the bill perfectly and my vicar thinks it's not inconsistent with Christianity to think this way. My church has a tradition of all kinds of ideas by priests including a previous Archbishop of York who denied the very existence of Jesus.

[Lion IRC]

Well, it's refreshing to see a ''real atheist'' making a definite assertion that God doesnt exist.

So many quasi-atheists these days dont have the guts to come out from behind the good old...lucky, lazy, Zero Burden Of Proof curtain.

You are a fucking idiot.

[commence wall of noise]
................................................................
.................................................................
....................................................................
.......................................................................
...........................................................................
[end wall of noise]

Feel better now?

---

As an example:

I hear atheists asserting that the universe is a - no God required - perpetual motion machine.
What proof should I demand from them that this assertion is true?

[Tobie]

You are a fucking idiot.

[commence wall of noise]
................................................................
.................................................................
....................................................................
.......................................................................
...........................................................................
[end wall of noise]

Feel better now?

---

As an example:

I hear atheists asserting that the universe is a - no God required - perpetual motion machine.
What proof should I demand from them that this assertion is true?

Within modern science, the universe doesn't require a god to have started. It's called Big Bang theory. As for the perpetual motion machine - I assume you mean the constantly expanding size of the universe (which has swathes of evidence, and last years Nobel Prize for Physics was given to some scientists that showed the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate), which is not perpetual motion, because it is "powered" by something called Vacuum Energy - this problem hasn't actually been solved satisfactorily yet - The Cosmological Constant problem is one of the biggest questions for modern physicists, so much so that whomever solves it is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

[greneknight]

Feel better now?

---

I hear atheists asserting that the universe is a - no God required - perpetual motion machine.
What proof should I demand from them that this assertion is true?

Within modern science, the universe doesn't require a god to have started. It's called Big Bang theory. As for the perpetual motion machine - I assume you mean the constantly expanding size of the universe (which has swathes of evidence, and last years Nobel Prize for Physics was given to some scientists that showed the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate), which is not perpetual motion, because it is "powered" by something called Vacuum Energy - this problem hasn't actually been solved satisfactorily yet - The Cosmological Constant problem is one of the biggest questions for modern physicists, so much so that whomever solves it is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

I read somewhere that the cosmological constant argument is no big deal. Apparently, it's not as tough as it seems. For starters, the universe could have come and gone billions of times in the past and each time, it didn't meet the constant and so there was no viable life in it. But whenever the constants are met, and there is life in the universe, someone will always say the cosmological constant proves that there is God.

Also, another possibility is even without the constants, all is not lost. It's just that we may get a universe that's quite unlike what we can imagine but it may very well lead to something we really don't know. And the folks in that WEIRD universe will say if their constants aren't met, there wouldn't be a viable universe.

So, I really think the cosmological constant argument is bunkum if it's going to be used to support the existence of a God.

[Brian37]

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.



OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

You are quite right. You do make a lot of sense. I've only very recently started reading the Bible and theological books seriously because I was too young before that and I formulated an idea about God that I think must be the correct solution. God is for me a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice. He's not a being even though by convention and culture we use the personal pronoun. The Bible is violent and immoral because it was written by a band of marauding tribesmen. Imagine if Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun had written a holy book, it would very much resemble the Bible. That's how people of antiquity were like.

That idea of God fits the bill perfectly and my vicar thinks it's not inconsistent with Christianity to think this way. My church has a tradition of all kinds of ideas by priests including a previous Archbishop of York who denied the very existence of Jesus.

Hate to burst your bubble, but even in using "God as a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice" is superflous. Just scrap the word "God" altogether.

Life is not perfect and "goodness" to one my not be "goodness" to another. And humans argue over the "truth" all the time. And far too many people in the world see "Justice" not as law, but revenge.

Just say, "No one likes when bad things happen to them", and "We prefure when people are honest with us" and "law should be about fact finding, not emotion".