What is a god?

[LukeMC]

It just illustrates my age, I suppose. My background is more political than science or religion. In days gone by a spade was called a spade. Nowadays, people are less likely to be blunt than they once were. I won't call it political correctness, because I don't think it is. I am aghast that being blunt now constitutes worthy of a " warning " .
It seems I'm in a minority of 1...so be it.

In my psychology class we've had a look at this sort of thing. Sugar-coating and politeness, etc. It's interesting.

Why am I even typing this... wayyyy off topic

[bozo]

It just illustrates my age, I suppose. My background is more political than science or religion. In days gone by a spade was called a spade. Nowadays, people are less likely to be blunt than they once were. I won't call it political correctness, because I don't think it is. I am aghast that being blunt now constitutes worthy of a " warning " .
It seems I'm in a minority of 1...so be it.

In my psychology class we've had a look at this sort of thing. Sugar-coating and politeness, etc. It's interesting.

Why am I even typing this... wayyyy off topic

Hey I'm glad you did....you just may have some sympathy for my position?.....and I need all the help I can get!

[LukeMC]

Yeah I get your position. I think the fact that your blunt, honest opinion happened to be of a critical nature, it set off an emotional reaction in the readers. What you expressed was your true and honest opinion on the matter. You're entitled to it. However, it contributed not to the thread, but instead to argument, hence you get a negative response.

[bozo]

Yeah I get your position. I think the fact that your blunt, honest opinion happened to be of a critical nature, it set off an emotional reaction in the readers. What you expressed was your true and honest opinion on the matter. You're entitled to it. However, it contributed not to the thread, but instead to argument, hence you get a negative response.

A negative response from your perspective obviously, a disappointing response from my perspective certainly!

[CoxRox]

Wow, things have come along a bit. Bozo, I don't want to fall out. We can all be blunt but let's try and remain civil for the sake of 'truth'.

Luke, you said:
''Okay, life gives these laws a purpose (upholding life), but what purpose does life have? Thes laws don't add anything to the purpose of a human, they just make it possible for a human to survive. Where is the purpose coming from for us?''

I drew a comparison between the laws and purpose which was silly really. Purpose is more an abstract thing, but nevertheless as real as the laws. I have a purpose to get up in the morning because I have things to look forward to (opening my pressies), giving my partner a big kiss. Looking after my baby grandson maybe). We fill our lives with purpose. We create purposes. (One person's purpose is another's waste of time, I know.) We need to be motivated to do anything: hunger pains remind us to eat (not that I need reminding). Sex is very enjoyable, loving someone makes you feel warm, safe, contented etc so purpose is a natural part of life. Without it we would not have direction, or boundaries maybe?? All I know is, we all seem to want purpose in our lives. We would rather do a job that has meaning, instead of a 9-5 mind numbing factory type job. So life is 'purpose' maybe. I would say 'purpose' is necessary to life.

The purpose of life, I think is to be part of and experience the universe:consciousness, loving, reproducing, working. We are all 'sparks of a fire-work display'. You need all the sparks to see the overall effects of the display. We all intereact with each other and hopefully will make some amazing displays of our own.... Maybe we could sum it up as CONTRIBUTION. OUr purpose is to contribute to the universe.

''I'm retracting my statement. I have a new road to go down... Pain is a result of nerve stimulus and such things, not the direct interaction of some being. So lets leave that aside. ''

I'll just say quickly that pain is necessary in this physical world. Without it we would die. It is a 'brake' for us, if you like. I said it must be a necessary ingredient and it is for physical reasons. The same applies for emotional or moral reasons. We can suffer pain if we do something wrong e.g kill someone, cheat on someone. Hit someone, or someone being rude to you Pain seems to be the result of something going wrong.

''Instead, I ask why people are given the choice to do wrong? If there is no afterlife, then there is no reward for the good, no punishment for the bad.''

We need to know both right and wrong in order to appreciate why 'wrong' is wrong. If I leave Christianity out of it and just consider this force or being, then all these things: choice, right, wrong are an integral part of the universe. All possibilities exist. Variations of doing things exist. We are not born with all the facts. We have to learn and we make many mistakes. A baby wants to touch the flame. You can't convey to it why it shouldn't. Either it will learn the hard way or it's hand will get close enough to realise the danger before it gets hurt. I might like the idea of having three husbands. Just think what a great time I could have, but then there could come into it very bad things, jealousies, violence, who knows what else? Many things are possible and we can choose to do something and invariably we learn the hard way, but hopefully we do learn.

There is no afterlife whre we go on living after we die. When we die that's it. The claim of Christianity is that Jesus has the power to bring you back to life in a new form that is incorruptible, no longer prone to decay but is still 'you'. It also claims that people will be punished for wrong doing. (If we do something wrong in our society, society will punish us. ) Jesus' corrective punishment will not involve sadistic torture. In what way is that corrective? Rather, through love, people will learn the 'truth' and come to terms with the choices of right and wrong. (I'm looking into a branch of Christianity that believes everyone will be forgiven, although still punished, so no one will be lost). If I'd never heard of Jesus and I'm just considering this force or being, I would probably conclude that when we die we become part of the universe. Our bodies rot down etc. I would have no cause to think I'd live again.

''The bad people ruin the lives of the good people and get away with it. Does this benevolent force find it acceptable that it has created people who are only going to be put through pain by other people? Why didn't it instead create the universe in a way that we would evolve altruistic characteristics long before we were capable of harnassing evil? This way, it would have created a lovely place where people help oneanother instead of killing an dhurting.''

Bad only comes into existence by actions. It isn't some 'force' of itself. In my life and my own experience I strive to lead a good life and not let 'evil' get the better of me. By that I mean I try to turn the other cheek. I try to not be selfish. Yes evil may happen to me against my wishes. This is one of the hardest things to accept. We are learning what choices result in 'bad', just as evolution is supposedly learning by its mistakes.

''The benevolence of this force is now in question, as it is behaving rather unbenevolently. Unless it rewards the good people? Does it? If not, can you still call it benevolent.''

The 'force' allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and for us to learn. You may call that unbenevolent. The fact that pain and suffering exist does throw a big spanner in the works, I admit. I don't think their existence throw's doubt in the force/creator's existence. This 'being' if it exists, must be what it must be- in that the laws must be what they are for all of this to exist. The potential for evil exists and must be a necessary part of the equation. Let's hope it gets cancelled out at some point?

[Purple Rabbit]

Okay, life gives these laws a purpose (upholding life), but what purpose does life have? Thes laws don't add anything to the purpose of a human, they just make it possible for a human to survive. Where is the purpose coming from for us?

I have never understood this type of reasoning. How can something other than yourself define purpose for you in any meaningfull way? I, for once, am not seeking that docile kind of puposefullness for my live. Are you not the master of what you want and decide on as meaningfull? How can a religion nowadays promote a master-slave-depency to be the benchmark of meaningfullness and purposefullness?

[lukec]

What is this branch of Christianity you're looking into? I was just reading the bible and came across the line, "God will not save the guilty" (or something similar) and cannot help but feel that the particular branch you're talking about could be selectively interpreting the bible.

The 'force' allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and for us to learn. You may call that unbenevolent. The fact that pain and suffering exist does throw a big spanner in the works, I admit. I don't think their existence throw's doubt in the force/creator's existence. This 'being' if it exists, must be what it must be- in that the laws must be what they are for all of this to exist. The potential for evil exists and must be a necessary part of the equation. Let's hope it gets cancelled out at some point?

If this force exists, and allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and in a sense "self-police," then what exactly is the force doing? Pain and suffering are an important part of life, because as you say they allow us to grow and learn and appreciate the true beauty (subjective) of life. But what do you mean about this "being" being what it must be? Why must it be anything, if the basic physical laws of the universe potentially could have led to where we are now?

If the potential for evil exists, so must the potential for goodness, and I believe both of these things are part of humanity. As you say, they are not forces in and of themselves, and I don't think it's possible to cancel them out. It is only by working together as humans, and not by appealing to a higher power to save us, that we can move towards a better world.

[LukeMC]

I drew a comparison between the laws and purpose which was silly really. Purpose is more an abstract thing, but nevertheless as real as the laws. I have a purpose to get up in the morning because I have things to look forward to (opening my pressies), giving my partner a big kiss. Looking after my baby grandson maybe). We fill our lives with purpose. We create purposes.

Then we give ourselves purpose. The magic matter plays no role in this? Agree?

We need to be motivated to do anything: hunger pains remind us to eat (not that I need reminding). Sex is very enjoyable, loving someone makes you feel warm, safe, contented etc so purpose is a natural part of life.

These sorts of things were evolved, I'm not disputing their existence- they are necessary for life.

Without it we would not have direction, or boundaries maybe?? All I know is, we all seem to want purpose in our lives. We would rather do a job that has meaning, instead of a 9-5 mind numbing factory type job. So life is 'purpose' maybe. I would say 'purpose' is necessary to life.

In which case, no magic matter required for this part.

The purpose of life, I think is to be part of and experience the universe:consciousness, loving, reproducing, working.

I will agree with the reproducing, but beyond that, everything else is purpose which we impose. They just make the experience much nicer for us, but theyre aren't necessary. Plants don't have social lives (as far as I'm aware), their only purpose in life is to reproduce successfully. We are the same, except we give ourselves extra "purposes" to keep us going.

We are all 'sparks of a fire-work display'. You need all the sparks to see the overall effects of the display. We all intereact with each other and hopefully will make some amazing displays of our own.... Maybe we could sum it up as CONTRIBUTION. OUr purpose is to contribute to the universe.

We could impose that on ourselves, yes. And I really quite like this. However, this has little to do with the magic matter.

We need to know both right and wrong in order to appreciate why 'wrong' is wrong. If I leave Christianity out of it and just consider this force or being, then all these things: choice, right, wrong are an integral part of the universe. All possibilities exist. Variations of doing things exist. We are not born with all the facts. We have to learn and we make many mistakes.

Terrorist blows up building. People die. The good people cannot learn because they are dead. The rest of us can learn. Those killed were basically a sacrifice for our benefit? What happens to those poor innocent people? They didn't choose to die painfully.

There is no afterlife whre we go on living after we die. When we die that's it. The claim of Christianity is that Jesus has the power to bring you back to life in a new form that is incorruptible, no longer prone to decay but is still 'you'. It also claims that people will be punished for wrong doing. (If we do something wrong in our society, society will punish us. ) Jesus' corrective punishment will not involve sadistic torture. In what way is that corrective? Rather, through love, people will learn the 'truth' and come to terms with the choices of right and wrong. (I'm looking into a branch of Christianity that believes everyone will be forgiven, although still punished, so no one will be lost). If I'd never heard of Jesus and I'm just considering this force or being, I would probably conclude that when we die we become part of the universe. Our bodies rot down etc. I would have no cause to think I'd live again.

First you say that there is no afterlife. Next you talk about Jesus working his magic after we die. What is the point in this? We won't come back, we'll not materialise in any way, we won't continue to exist in any state or form (according to what you've said). So Jesus' cleansing is a waste of time?
Lets imagine I don't know Jesus. Who is he? Why is he so special and who gave him these magical powers?

Bad only comes into existence by actions. It isn't some 'force' of itself. In my life and my own experience I strive to lead a good life and not let 'evil' get the better of me. By that I mean I try to turn the other cheek. I try to not be selfish.

You get shot and are now dead. You cannot learn, you cannot grow. You are now nothing more than a human sacrifice for the sake of other humans? Why you? You didn't choose this path. An innocent life taken in an instant. I'm struggling with this.

The 'force' allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and for us to learn. You may call that unbenevolent. The fact that pain and suffering exist does throw a big spanner in the works, I admit.

It seems to me that by asserting that this magical creator cares about you, you are appealing to your own emotions, not to reason. From everything we've discussed so far, this matter has no sense of benevolence. And I don't think you any longer have a reason to believe otherwise.

The potential for evil exists and must be a necessary part of the equation.

This looks to me a lot like:
Evil exists. Why?
It exists therefore it must be necessary for it to exist. The creator must have a reson for it.

Instead of:
Evil exists. Why?
Because there is no morally superior being to say otherwise. Evil is down to us. We cannot throw the blame elsewhere.

I dislike how theists believe that evil is a necessary part of life. Evil is only necessary if the supernatural being responsible for everything is not benevolent. If it were really good, it wouldn't torture its creations until they die and then forget about them. You say that evil is necessary for us to learn. Why should it be? Why did it take a Holocaust for us to unite against cruelty? Why weren't we already against cruelty before it came about? Pointless, sadistic, meaningless sacrifice. If good people have to die for us to learn, I question the god-figure's benevolence to the fullest. You need to drop the benevolence claim.

Your turn

[CoxRox]

What is this branch of Christianity you're looking into? I was just reading the bible and came across the line, "God will not save the guilty" (or something similar) and cannot help but feel that the particular branch you're talking about could be selectively interpreting the bible.

The 'force' allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and for us to learn. You may call that unbenevolent. The fact that pain and suffering exist does throw a big spanner in the works, I admit. I don't think their existence throw's doubt in the force/creator's existence. This 'being' if it exists, must be what it must be- in that the laws must be what they are for all of this to exist. The potential for evil exists and must be a necessary part of the equation. Let's hope it gets cancelled out at some point?

If this force exists, and allows the universe to evolve and adapt, and in a sense "self-police," then what exactly is the force doing? Pain and suffering are an important part of life, because as you say they allow us to grow and learn and appreciate the true beauty (subjective) of life. But what do you mean about this "being" being what it must be? Why must it be anything, if the basic physical laws of the universe potentially could have led to where we are now?

If the potential for evil exists, so must the potential for goodness, and I believe both of these things are part of humanity. As you say, they are not forces in and of themselves, and I don't think it's possible to cancel them out. It is only by working together as humans, and not by appealing to a higher power to save us, that we can move towards a better world.

It's called Universal Reconciliation and it could well be way off the mark. I'm still looking into it. None of us are saved yet. We all die.

The self-policing is a factor but many 'religious' people, or people with some kind of belief in a personal God would say that we are being invited (through say the bible for example, or a mystical experience) to not self-police completely but to lead our lives in a certain way prescribed by that deity.

I am speculating somewhat about this being remember so when I say it must be what it must be, I'm assuming it does indeed exist, and therefore just as the laws of physics exist and are what they are, so too is this being. If gravity for instance was somewhat stronger or weaker, then we could not exist so it must be what it is, for life to exist.

I agree somewhat with your last point about 'goodness' and 'evil' both being parts of humanity. If I didn't know about Christianity, then I would conclude that 'evil' will always be part of life, along with the goodness. There's not much 'goodness' to look forward to in the greater scheme of things, we will all die, the earth will struggle to provide fuels, there's pollution etc. and then of course the sun will burn up so we're only temporary residents here. We can try to make a better world in the mean time, but unfair stuff (murders, sickness, natural disasters) befall many people so they lose out on the better world anyway. It's still all shit.

[Purple Rabbit]

The purpose of life, I think is to be part of and experience the universe:consciousness, loving, reproducing, working.

I will agree with the reproducing, but beyond that, everything else is purpose which we impose. They just make the experience much nicer for us, but theyre aren't necessary. Plants don't have social lives (as far as I'm aware), their only purpose in life is to reproduce successfully. We are the same, except we give ourselves extra "purposes" to keep us going.

Ascribing purpose to plants and things is a typical human thing. Even as a nonbeliever you seem eager to do so. This is not obvious at all. The human brain seems to be wired for this. The purpose you ascribe to plants shows the use of an actor-object model of the world in which everything in the world is perceived in terms of usefullness to the actor, a rather utilitarian view on the world. From an evolutionary standpoint this model has proven usefull (to survive and adapt to new situations) to us. But its characteristic assesment of all objects in the world as contributing parts to some higher purpose is the result of the combination of a pattern seeking ability inate to man and the misconception that the whole of being can be personified as some agent with needs of his/her own. This is why an answer on the purpose of being is often not satisfactory to the questioner. Somewhere in the background the cosmic agent, notwithstanding its artificial state, lingers in the mind.

Imo the actor-object model is a false model when applied to the whole of being. I think we are very lucky to be able to define our own purpose in life.