Op/ED g/God, broken concept

[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".

[Jeffonthenet]

Hello Brian,

I have had experiences that, it seems to me, are best explained by the God of Jesus Christ existing. Granted that this is not an argument for God, but I can certainly think of examples where one is justified in believing their experience to be true, even if they cannot prove this experience to others. However, as one cannot experience directly the non-existence of God (nothingness has no presence which can be directly experienced), I don't think atheism can be justified that way. And as you have looked for a sensible argument for God's existence, I have also looked for a good argument against God's existence and haven't found one. Your post also didn't seem to contain a convincing one. While it is true that humans are capable of believing things based on wish fulfillment, the simple assertion of this would call into question all of our beliefs, and not just God. Some could see atheism as wish fulfillment if one wanted to as well. Atheism, like God, is nonphysical, and the non-existence of God is not going to be found in the scientific laboratory. Likewise, simply, from the fact of suffering it doesn't seem to follow that there is no God because it seems possible that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing this suffering. If I have missed any of your arguments, feel free to bring them up and I will respond.

Kind regards,

- Jeff

[genkaus]

I have had experiences that, it seems to me, are best explained by the God of Jesus Christ existing. Granted that this is not an argument for God, but I can certainly think of examples where one is justified in believing their experience to be true, even if they cannot prove this experience to others.

And what makes you think that the god of Jesus Christ is the "best" explanation for those experiences? Seems to me that if that was actually the "best" explanation, then this could definitely be used as an argument for your god. But since you explicitly state that it is not an argument, I'd say that your experiences have a mundane "best" explanation and you simply wish that your god was the best explanation in its place. And if your god was the "best" explanation, then you'd be justified in your belief, but since it is not, you know that you have no justification and are simply trying to use the subjective nature of your experience to escape providing it.

However, as one cannot experience directly the non-existence of God (nothingness has no presence which can be directly experienced), I don't think atheism can be justified that way.

Actually, it can. As you said, we can experience the existence - however, if in every case where existence is expected to be experienced we find that either there is no experience or experience can be traced to other causes, then it is ample justification for non-existence. If I am outdoors and I see that the sky is not cloudy and there are no raindrops falling on me and I am not getting wet, then there is ample justification to say that rain is not falling - even though I cannot "directly experience the non-falling of rain".

And as you have looked for a sensible argument for God's existence, I have also looked for a good argument against God's existence and haven't found one. Your post also didn't seem to contain a convincing one. While it is true that humans are capable of believing things based on wish fulfillment, the simple assertion of this would call into question all of our beliefs, and not just God. Some could see atheism as wish fulfillment if one wanted to as well. Atheism, like God, is nonphysical, and the non-existence of God is not going to be found in the scientific laboratory. Likewise, simply, from the fact of suffering it doesn't seem to follow that there is no God because it seems possible that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing this suffering. If I have missed any of your arguments, feel free to bring them up and I will respond.

This is where you lose your justification. That is the line between wish-fulfillment and justified belief. The moment you invoke a hypothetical, without any basis on facts, you have lost your "justified" position.

[Brian37]

Hello Brian,

I have had experiences that, it seems to me, are best explained by the God of Jesus Christ existing. Granted that this is not an argument for God, but I can certainly think of examples where one is justified in believing their experience to be true, even if they cannot prove this experience to others. However, as one cannot experience directly the non-existence of God (nothingness has no presence which can be directly experienced), I don't think atheism can be justified that way. And as you have looked for a sensible argument for God's existence, I have also looked for a good argument against God's existence and haven't found one. Your post also didn't seem to contain a convincing one. While it is true that humans are capable of believing things based on wish fulfillment, the simple assertion of this would call into question all of our beliefs, and not just God. Some could see atheism as wish fulfillment if one wanted to as well. Atheism, like God, is nonphysical, and the non-existence of God is not going to be found in the scientific laboratory. Likewise, simply, from the fact of suffering it doesn't seem to follow that there is no God because it seems possible that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing this suffering. If I have missed any of your arguments, feel free to bring them up and I will respond.

Kind regards,

- Jeff

First off, "personal experiences" do not count. Jews and Muslims can tell you their stories of "personal experience". If you knew anything about evolution, human psychology or mere INK BLOT tests, you'd now that our perceptions are notoriously flawed and quite often wrong.

Secondly, suffering does not disprove the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Thor or Posiden either so those gods exist by default as well?

BUT if you read my post what I was addressing was the CONCEPT in claiming that a god claim has the attribute of being all powerful, and has our best interest in mind. What we see in reality despite what ALL god claimants propose conflicts with that concept.

No sane person in their right mind would allow their own child to suffer the way this god character does. So STRICTLY as a claim it is logically inconsistent.

There are 35 million deaths a year world wide. From every type, cancer, crime, war, famine, young, babies, old and everyone in between. If you want to call that a plan?

If you have a kid, or baby sat a kid, would you put them in a house full of razor blades, broken glass, poison all over the floor, full of cockroaches in a shanty shack in the middle of a mudslide prone valley and then blame the kid for what you did not have to set up?

Name me one period in human evolution, where disease, famine, natural disaster and war never happened.

You cant, so the only explanation for your "experience" that makes any rational sense is that you fall for a super hero claim for the same reason humans throughout history have. You want a magical protector to replace your parents. But just like all the dead gods you don't believe in, you as well are merely allowing your "perception" to fool you because your desire over rides your ability to question.

[yoda55]

Brian37 wrote: "First off, "personal experiences" do not count. Jews and Muslims can tell you their stories of "personal experience". If you knew anything about evolution, human psychology or mere INK BLOT tests, you'd now that our perceptions are notoriously flawed and quite often wrong."

Personal experiences DO count. I'll cite one such, which I experienced: first some background...
(1) When I was in Middle School, my 6th grade teacher covered an Asian section in Social Studies. During this section, we chose a country on which to report - not just encyclopedic regurgitation, but also preparation of food to share with the class as a way of better understanding the culture (short of traveling there). My choice was Japan. I was interested in the culture, particularly the government instituted through the Samurai structure. It was a passing interest. And although it elicited an "A" from that study, it had no lasting fascination.
(2) I earned a Naval Officer commission, upon graduation from a university. I was single, and I intended to get married "some day". But, I had no expectations, nor recent social involvements. My first posting was aboard a ship based on the west coast, which made port visit in Yokosuka, and permitted a visit to Tokyo. It satisfied my curiosity, and rounded out the study in from so many years before. I gave it no further thought. A university (and grade school) classmate of mine was commissioned a Marine Officer, and was posted to Okinawa, Japan.
(3) My next tour of duty was to a deployed group staff, homeported on Okinawa. I looked forward to renewing my friendship with my classmate. He was a bit of a card, and liked playing practicaljokes on people, but I'd never been the butt of his activities. My first night on Okinawa, the staff flag secretary (a Commander) invited me to accompany him - he'd show me around, so I could get my bearings (traveling from White Beach to Kadena). We stopped to catch a bite to eat, at a local equivalent of a cafe (both food and drink).
(4) Now, we hear sailor stories of places around the world where "hostess" has a very vulgar meaning than our dictionary would lead us to believe. In this case, that sailor meaning was NOT applicable. We were ushered to a singular booth, separated from the other seating by the equivalent of a dance floor. Two hostesses kept us conversationally occupied, and ensured we were served some sustenance. I sat against the wall, as did my running mate - the hostesses seated on the aisle side. During the meal, I felt a tap on my right shoulder. I was expecting that my classmate had seen me before I'd seen him. As soon as I felt it, I swung around left (assuming the child trick of standing to the opposite side as the one tapped, and reaching around) - there was no one within fifteen feet of us. There was no commotion to indicate a quick sidestep. The booth pillar was too narrow to hide someone. All other patrons were seated, despite the music. As my meal progressed, I felt a palpable pressure on my right cheek - causing me to turn my head and look at the young hostess beside me, and study her features in detail.
(5) I'm not a bigot by any stretch of the imagination. I had no expectations, being in Japan, about seeking or finding my future mate during my posting there. In fact, I was inclined the other direction. I will tell you the thought that next crossed my mind did not originate with me. Verbatim, the thought was "I'm going to marry this girl". In order to shorten this, somewhat, I'll call out some pertinent points: (a) this girl was a member of Samurai heritage; (b) her step-father was a Shinto priest (and Imperial court noble) who educated her at three different denominational parochial boarding schools, during which she learned Christian precepts; © her step-father was a retired Captain of the Imperial Japanese Navy in WWII (surface ships, as was I), who was unimpressed by her prior native suitors; (d) in my one and only opportunity to visit him, I brought the expected social gift (in honor of my host) - and it happened to be his exact favorite beverage.

The lady has been my wife for over 30 years, and two children who were so low maintenance/effort to raise, does not happen by chance when taken with the other factors. Another interesting tidbit - my wife was born exactly three years before me (almost to the hour). Our interests are so nearly identical as to cause a person to think we're actually brother and sister.

All of these contributors falling into place, in such a favorable manner, is something I cannot attribute to chance. Particularly, I cannot accept the tap on the shoulder, the pressure on my cheek, and the matter-of-fact conclusion about my initial contact with her as being a result of human (or natural) sources.

Separate issue - Psychology is a pseudo-science. It masquerades as science, when it cannot conduct tests with controls that are free of highly variable pre-conditions. Ink blots are just that, often printed as symmetrical patterns. When a test is conducted, the testor should be employing a method from which he has accurate expectation of the results (he's asking a question for which he's seeking confirmation, not unexpected deviation) - not an open-ended procedure.

Brian37 wrote: "If you have a kid, or baby sat a kid, would you put them in a house full of razor blades, broken glass, poison all over the floor, full of cockroaches in a shanty shack in the middle of a mudslide prone valley and then blame the kid for what you did not have to set up?"

If you were going to abandon the child to the toilet conditions you describe, then I would have reservations about trusting the wisdom. However, when the child is developing, one doesn't leave him to the solitary care of the babysitter - teaching how to negotiate hazards. And, being children, each child has some growing up to do. And, there are some matter-of-fact points each child should know (e.g. cause and effect) and that freedom of action has a price (as does disobedience).

Brian73 wrote: "Name me one period in human evolution, where disease, famine, natural disaster and war never happened."

A loaded question, when one presupposes evolution. Assuming evolution, the inclusion of war is not a natural process - I vote "foul", no contest. Putting evolution aside, I say "once" - before the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

[Minimalist]

Personal experiences DO count.

Here on this board shit they count for.


Watch out that the force doesn't creep up your ass.

[Lion IRC]

Sorry Brian37
You lost me with this unsubstantiated, faith-based "absolute truth" claim.

...the reality that this is all there is.
...

Science is doing a bang-up job of expanding the knowledge horizon further and further away.

The God of the Gaps has even bigger gaps to fill than ever before in human history.

Cave man thought his unexplored ''universe'' was perhaps 100 miles wide. Numinous. Mysterious. Unseen by telescopes/microscopes. But his ignorant 100 mile wide assumption was at least plausible to him.

The 2012 cave man has no idea how big his expanding, no-boundary polyverse/megaverse/multiverse is. Everytime he climbs a new mountain
he sees yet another new horizon which is exponentially further away than the previous.

Panspermia biochemist Nick Lane (in June 23 New Scientist) speculates the monumental galactic distances are so great that we face the same problem aliens would face in us both trying to reach one another - not enough time and resources available before we self-extinguish in our own stupidity...or entropy.

Of course, a Higher Being from another universe, travelling through a worm-hole, using the power of dark energy to manipulate quantum vacuum space/time, might be able to come here.

[Brian37]

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that thoughts can occur magically outside evolution and that there is a magical invisible super brain with no material, no brain, no neurons, be my guest, but you are not going to sell your superstition here. You can try to sell it, but we will just continue to pound your credulous fantasy.

Life is finite, the earth is finite, the sun is finite. Inventing and falsely believing in fairy tale super heros will not change that.

Humans invent gods, nothing more.

[Lion IRC]

Tell me again why humans would invent God?

To control others? Nope. Religion is and always has been voluntary.

Fear of death? Imaginary anaesthetic for real pain? Nope. The God conclusion isnt a prank ppl play on themselves.

Whenever I hear an atheist say religion invented the afterlife because of a fear of death I wonder about the corollary - Atheism is a religion invented by people so that they dont have to be afraid that there IS an afterlife.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tell me again why humans would invent God?

How much time do you have and which gods would we be referring to?

To control others? Nope. Religion is and always has been voluntary.

I have never seen a more blissfully misinformed sentiment expressed. You can thank us secular sons of bitches for that leeway in belief btw, whenever it's convenient for you.

Fear of death? Imaginary anaesthetic for real pain? Nope. The God conclusion isnt a prank ppl play on themselves.

Yes and yes, and yes.........

Whenever I hear an atheist say religion invented the afterlife because of a fear of death I wonder about the corollary - Atheism is a religion invented by people so that they dont have to be afraid that there IS an afterlife.

The afterlife is a great deal older than any religion, so far as we can tell. The various descriptions of it have been invented by varying religions -as a matter of fact-.