If there is a creator, so what?

[AceBoogie]

If the christian god was real I'd tell him to go fuck himself

[robvalue]

Ignorant: Well no, we haven't established I'm dependent on it for anything. You're making a lot of assumptions there. You're using your own ideas of what a creator represents. [1]

But even if I am, so what? [2]

1) Ha! I though that was the idea? When you grant the hypothetical god existing, doesn't that also grant the "sort" of god it is as well? Maybe not?

2) Well, your "being" and god's "being" are tied up at the most fundamental level of your "being-Rob". 

You're married. Something tells me that knowing things about your spouse and the nature of your relationship matters to you, and it probably helps guide your decision-making (maybe not, assuming a lot here, but you seem like the kind of guy who would care about those things).

If the most fundamental part of "being-Rob" is some kind of a relationship with god's "being", then maybe it matters in a way similar to your marriage?

The OP was about a general creator, but sure, you can have your version.

I don't have much of an idea what you're talking about I'm afraid. Sure, if I learnt something new about my wife it would be important. But such analogies aren't very helpful to me. Can you give me one example of something I might learn "about God" which should make any difference to me?

It appears to be phrased in such a way that learning about God is just learning about myself, or learning about reality. I've never understood your idea of "God" I'm afraid.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant... I answered your question... I don't understand your reaction where you just bolded my follow up question and talked about how things had gone in the thread instead of addressing it.

1. I said I would play along and I did.

2. Are you satisfied with my answer?

3. Are you going to answer my follow up question?

I've been answering it with other people. I'd rather not have to repeat myself in responding to 4 different people. You can catch up. I believe in you.

[Ignorant]

Not at all.  I was a Hindu before becoming an atheist.  What reason would I have for presuming the creator is like your god rather than mine? [1] This points to a major problem with Christianity in that it is founded upon a book that has multiple flaws. [2] Why would I assume its putative author had anything to do with creation? [3]

1) The reasons that would have led to the conclusion that it is real. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not proposing at this point that the purely rational conception of god is the same thing as Christianity's god and certainly not Hindu's god.

The most basic, purely rational conception of god, as far as I can tell, is subsistent-being. If Hindu's god is subsistent-being, then at this point in the discussion, we have no disagreement.

2) How many times have you heard me make reference to that book in the this thread? Zero.

3) I don't know. You certainly haven't read that assumption in this thread.

[Ignorant]

And you won't be able to.  There is no possible basis for establishing xtianity as the brand of creator god in question, at least not short of producing god itself (provided he is willing to back your play). [1]

I don't think you appreciate just how little most of us really care about all this talk of the 'supernatural'. [2] While we all have an interest in knowing what is true, none of us has any obligation to invest our precious but limited time seeking to vouchsafe every strange claim some lunatic swears to. [3] And no I don't care a wit that hundreds of people claim to have witnessed miracles. [4]

1) If you say so. What do you think of the "brandless" god in discussion so far?

2) You are the first to mention that word. I think I have appreciated that fact a lot in my contributions on the topic in other places. I hate the term 'supernatural'. What part of my description are you labeling 'supernatural'.

3) So... your time spent responding to me is... charity?

4) What? Where did that come from?

[Ignorant]

Will it work both ways?

Not with me, no. I'm not interested in setting a different tone.  I'm very much aware of how I come across, and it's completely intentional.

Great, that explains a lot. Thanks.

[Ignorant]

The OP was about a general creator, but sure, you can have your version. [1]

I don't have much of an idea what you're talking about I'm afraid. Sure, if I learnt something new about my wife it would be important. But such analogies aren't very helpful to me. Can you give me one example of something I might learn "about God" which should make any difference to me? [2]

It appears to be phrased in such a way that learning about God is just learning about myself, or learning about reality. [3] I've never understood your idea of "God" I'm afraid. [4]

1) Thanks

2) We're working towards that. There is a woman who is your wife. Does your relationship with that woman (i.e. your wife) make any difference to you in regards to how you act towards other women? Why?

3) Well, I happen to believe that to be the case. Maybe not the whole case, but certainly part of it.

4) That is both good and disappointing. If god is what it is, then a full and all-encompassing understanding of what-it-is is beyond our capacity. It is disappointing that I am so poorly explaining even a slight understanding. Consider this:

Rob is being human.

God is being being.

In being human, Rob needs the action: to be.

God is that act.

Rob's being human is a "tapping into" what-god-is.

[robvalue]

Thanks for explaining but I still have no idea what you mean. Or rather, it just seems your idea of god is in tautologies/semantics. I don't see what it has to do with a creator. It doesn't sound like it actually exists as anything other than abstract concepts.

Sure, learning about my wife may affect how I interact with other women.

If learning about god is just learning about myself, then of course that's important, but it's just relabelling something that is already
known.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really don't get what you are saying. Maybe someone else could help me out.

[Ignorant]

Thanks for explaining but I still have no idea what you mean. Or rather, it just seems your idea of god is in tautologies/semantics. I don't see what it has to do with a creator. [1] It doesn't sound like it actually exists as anything other than abstract concepts. [2]

Sure, learning about my wife may affect how I interact with other women. [3]

1) Well that is a different problem than your original question, "Why should I care?" Now you are disputing the meaning of a creator, not whether or not you should care about a meaning.

Even so, perhaps your understanding of "a creator" has been influenced too much by all of the poor conceptions of god you have already rejected?

Think: if god IS "being" (i.e. the action), and your specific "being-Rob" somehow taps into the act of "being", then that act (i.e. god) is creating you at every moment in which you "are being" Rob. AND you are creating yourself through your own participation in that act.

If "being" is subsistent, then all other sorts of things get their ability to "be-at-all" from that subsistence.

2) God doesn't actually exist like anything else. It isn't a "thing" in the same way hydrogen or a human is a thing. God is act, the most general sort of act possible: "to be".  That thing is being a rock. That thing is being a tree. God is being "to be". Therefore, anything that "is", shares, somehow, in "to be" (i.e. god).

Your original question only addressed why it would matter if such a god existed, not whether or not such a god makes sense to you. Given your atheism, that it would not make sense was implied.

3) Good. But not just learning about your wife, but also about the nature of your relationship with her, right? In other words, your relationship with her is what makes her, and just her, your wife. Your relationship with her is different than your relationship with the Queen. So learning about the relationship you have with your wife, the marriage relationship in general, etc. are things about which I think you'd care without much explanation.

In a similar way:

If it is true that your-being-Rob IS a relation of some sort with god (i.e. some kind of participation with subsistent-being), then I think you'd care to know about a) that relation and 2) the god with whom you essentially and existentially relate

[FallentoReason]

That thing is being a rock. That thing is being a tree. God is being "to be". Therefore, anything that "is", shares, somehow, in "to be" (i.e. god).

Are Catholics closet pantheists?