If there is a creator, so what?

[Edwardo Piet]

So, Ignorant, basically I'm saying I accept that I would value having knowledge of the truth of a god's existence inasmuch as I value truth for its own sake... so that's step one. What's step two?

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for your interest, but your lack of interest in the sort of discussion I'd like to have tells me it would be best to just let you have the last word here.

What sort of discussion is it that you'd like to have?  I've been asking, and I;ve seen the sort of discussion you've been -having-.

You know what I think?  I think that you don't know how to get from the academic interest that we both share to what you really want to tell me about. That probably has something to do with your pedestrian rationalizations up to this point. You didn;t properly set the framework to build a cathedral, more of a mud hut. You made god the equivalent of oxygen. Necessary, perhaps, but unremarkable in it's necessity to that other thing you can't seem to find the pathway to.

I'll be frank, your inability to take that next step is puzzling, to me. I have no trouble with it. I didn't need 16 pages of setup to approach or discuss it. No arguments required, no bullshit "aren't you interested in truth?"s. I can assume that your god exists as described and quickly explain why it doesn't matter to -me-. Is it really beyond the pale to expect that you would be able to do the same, even if, ofc, in reverse?

If there is a creator, and further, if that creator is your creator, then so what? Will that change anything for me? Can you think of some reason that it would or should? Assuming the truth of your beliefs is -why- I'm not a christian....so.....how does arguing for their truth or rationality alter my appraisal or their relationship to me? Don;t get hung up on the "if" bit, you can have that for purposes of discussion - with me- unless you make this entire thing -about- it. Try approaching the "so what" bit, eh? Or, I guess, you can excuse yourself in a pointless attempt to seek some high ground, pointless...because I already granted you that as well.

[Whateverist]

Why? [1] Define "some attention"? [2] That is, after all, the question in the OP.  All this foreplay, lol...here we are.  It's showtime.

1) Because everything I am and everything I do involves it in some way.

2) Interest in the nature of the relationship between me and it. Interest in what-it-is. Interest in the nature of the relationship between it and everything else. Interest in what that means for me.

Let's give this putative god a natural foundation as an advanced alien race.  Let's further suppose, for whatever reason, that they are just delighted with us and want nothing more than to please and dote on us.  (I'm thinking this approximates -nicient/-powerful/-benevolent god conditions without actually exceeding the sub-omni limits which pertain to all but the superdupernatural.)  What then should be our interest in said creatures?

Me?  I'm thinking we might be better off if we slip through under their radar.  While there may be creatures compared to which we are but puppies, infants or even amoebas I question how healthy it would be to live under their protection.  I feel like I'm taking a captain Kirk stance here but do we really want to become some higher form's pet or, worse, infantilized by trading in our self determination for their 'divine' protection?  As for what they might teach us, unless they have the power to elevate us to their level of understanding wouldn't it be a little oppressive to know how incomplete and inconsequential our best efforts really are?  I think we are a sufficiently capable and interesting organism to deserve to live and continue to evolve on our own merits.  Besides, until we develop light speed propulsion, any advanced race would know better than to initiate first contact.

But if you're willing to allow that 'gods' might exist in the midjective realm, then I think a meaningful relationship is indeed possible.

[robvalue]

Okay well, I'll have to give up now Ignorant. Thanks for trying. I appreciate the respectful debate

I cannot grasp what you are talking about; or rather, why you are labelling things the way you are. You sound like a pantheist to me, that's the nearest I can get. You've ensured this "god" of yours exists by definition, while sacrificing it actually being or doing anything at all that wasn't already happening. [1] Instead it's a non-entity being given credit for things. [2]

Thanks for your willingness to hear me out!

1) That is actually close! The crucial part missing is the relational aspect of being and doing. God is being and doing, he is not ALL beings and doings (which would be pantheism). All beings and doings are and do what-they-do in a way that is distinct from god's being and doing, but they also participate and share in them. Distinct but related. Pantheism denies the distinction. So you are close!

2) So it's not so much that you wouldn't care, but more that you disagree or don't understand how this could be the case?

Nothing you've said makes me think it's something I should care about, no. You can repackage things I already care about and somehow include them in this "god" of yours, but that's nothing more than equivocating.

There doesn't appear to be anything new to care about.

[Whateverist]

Well as long as he only behaves that way towards some of us eh?

You can see that with me he cherry-picked me twice, only ever addressing one of my points, and also condescended me the second time.

I'm sorry if you felt a lack of support here, Hammy, and sorrier still to hear you are having personal strife at the moment.  That always extenuates whatever else is going on with me.  Intellectually I just don't have any loyalties, that is the essence of my whateverism.  So please don't take it personally, absolutely no lack of respect intended.

[Ignorant]

So, Ignorant, basically I'm saying I accept that I would value having knowledge of the truth of a god's existence inasmuch as I value truth for its own sake... so that's step one. What's step two?

Step two involves, supposing god exists, valuing the truth about god existing in relation to you. 

In short (as I have tried to explain to Rob), god being what-it-is, your being-you is fundamentally related to god-being-god. Knowing the nature of that relationship is valuable because it tells you about who and what you are.

[Ignorant]

You know what I think?  I think that you don't know how to get from the academic interest that we both share to what you really want to tell me about.  That probably has something to do with your pedestrian rationalizations up to this point.  You didn;t properly set the framework to build a cathedral, more of a mud hut.  You made god the equivalent of oxygen.  Necessary, perhaps, but unremarkable in it's necessity to that other thing you can't seem to find the pathway to.

Then it is best I don't waste your time, eh?

[The Grand Nudger]

So very transparent, Igno, lol. IDK, you tell -me-, is it best that you don;t waste my time, or do you have something to say that might make me, you know, care? That make make me change my assessment of the notion assuming it's truth? Isn;t that the point of this thread, or did you mistake it for a "does god exist" thread? You have plenty to say about that, obviously...but at what point will we get an answer to the OP Q? I can;t have made this any easier, look at where you sit with me.

I'm willing to grant that god exists, -and- that it's your god. You don't have to bore either of us with any of that. Now what...-so what-?

[Ignorant]

Let's give this putative god a natural foundation as an advanced alien race.  Let's further suppose, for whatever reason, that they are just delighted with us and want nothing more than to please and dote on us.  (I'm thinking this approximates -nicient/-powerful/-benevolent god conditions without actually exceeding the sub-omni limits which pertain to all but the superdupernatural.)  What then should be our interest in said creatures? [1]

Me?  I'm thinking we might be better off if we slip through under their radar.  While there may be creatures compared to which we are but puppies, infants or even amoebas I question how healthy it would be to live under their protection.  I feel like I'm taking a captain Kirk stance here but do we really want to become some higher form's pet or, worse, infantilized by trading in our self determination for their 'divine' protection? [2] As for what they might teach us, unless they have the power to elevate us to their level of understanding wouldn't it be a little oppressive to know how incomplete and inconsequential our best efforts really are?  I think we are a sufficiently capable and interesting organism to deserve to live and continue to evolve on our own merits. [3] Besides, until we develop light speed propulsion, any advanced race would know better than to initiate first contact.

But if you're willing to allow that 'gods' might exist in the midjective realm, then I think a meaningful relationship is indeed possible. [4]

1) I'm not sure how helpful that analogy will be according to how I understand a meaningful god. Our relationship with that alien race is not immediately related to our own existence. We could theoretically, as you suggest, "slip through under their radar" with the aliens. But with god, our relationship with it is constitutive of our own being. "Slipping through under the radar" with god would be the same as ignoring a fundamental aspect of what it means to be you.

2) I agree whole-heartedly. Trading in your freedom for divine protection seems like a strange idea. If you are fundamentally a relation with god, as I suggest, then 'divine' protection would be the thing which secures and provides your freedom and self determination.

3) Putting aside the analogy for this... is this to suggest that a relation with god suppresses this capacity?

4) Can you tell me more about what this means?

[Edwardo Piet]

So, Ignorant, basically I'm saying I accept that I would value having knowledge of the truth of a god's existence inasmuch as I value truth for its own sake... so that's step one. What's step two?

Step two involves, supposing god exists, valuing the truth about god existing in relation to you. 

In short (as I have tried to explain to Rob), god being what-it-is, your being-you is fundamentally related to god-being-god. Knowing the nature of that relationship is valuable because it tells you about who and what you are.

So would it be a fair paraphrasing of what you're saying if I said that step 1 is knowing god exists and step 2 is knowing what god means to me?