Do you WANT there to be a God?

[John_Harshman]

@CrisprCAS9

If an entity can change the expected outcome of events, they aren’t omniscient because they didn’t know the true outcome.

That makes no sense. Only if that entity can change the outcome expected by that entity is there a conflict between omnipotence and omniscience. And I would suggest that would not be logically possible, just as the omnipotent being can’t make a weight too big for it to lift.

@CrisprCAS9

If an entity can change, they aren’t changeless. If they can’t, they aren’t omnipotent.

Another logical impossibility.

@CrisprCAS9

I’m uncertain of what a ‘personal relationship’ would be with an entity that doesn’t change as a consequence of that relationship. It is, I think, a necessary component of what it means to have such a relationship.

I don’t get that argument at all.

All this is very nice, but isn’t the incompatibility of the imagined God with both reality and scripture a much stronger complaint that it would be more profitable to focus on?

[jmk00001]

@Art

So, it’s not so much that you want that there is a god, you want a god that has some pre-determined characteristics. This sounds a bit like you are molding god to suit your expectations or preferences.

What if the god of your expectations is an impossibility (logical, theological, even physical)? Would that change your desires and wishes?

Of course, what sort of God I prefer has zero bearing on what sort of god there is in reality. With that said, I’ve often thought that a Far-Eastern type god, one where we all sort of dissolve into the great Oneness of reality at death, like a drop added to a vast ocean - that sort of god has zero appeal to me because that sort of god would mean that I, as an individual, conscious person, would cease to exist. Any such god, it would seem to me, would be meaningless to me one way or another. I find no difference between being an unconscious drop in a vast ocean and entering oblivion at death with my body simply dissolving into dirt.

The Christian God, on the other hand, is a personal, loving being with whom one can have a relationship for all eternity, who stepped into human history to reveal Himself. Does this mean I believe in the Christian God solely for “the benefits”? Not at all. But, anyone who pretends they are don’t care whether they disappear into oblivion, with their whole life, their dreams, their work, their loved ones and relationships disappearing into a meaningless nothingness is either fooling themselves or lying.

[jmk00001]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Your definition of animosity or frustration is a good deal broader than mine. I’m not expressing either there. I’m remarking upon the empirical problem and upon the way in which, given that none of the gods appear to do much, it is difficult to care very much which ones of them exist and which ones of them do not.

I agree that your comment was less representative of “animosity” than some of the others, but it still reveals, I think, an overall negative view or feeling toward God - that he is not doing enough, doesn’t care enough or involve Himself enough to alleviate human suffering, etc. Even believers feel anger at God at times in their life, for example when tragedy strikes, etc. I suppose it is a matter of degree as to whether such feelings rise to the definition of “animosity”. So, that is why I included your comment in the list.

[jmk00001]

@John_Harshman

You persist in ignoring the ambiguity that you yourself introduced. Nobody so far is objecting to all gods, only to the sort of god your ambiguous hints seem to be aiming at, i.e. the one whose actions are described in the bible, who is clearly a monster (and whose nonexistence is fortunate).

Alternatively, there’s the one whose characteristics you subsequently described with the multiple omni words, who is no monster but who is clearly incompatible with realisty as we observe it. Nobody at all objected to that one; in fact I said it would be nice if he existed.

It really does seem as if you read into people’s responses only what you want to read into them.

@John_Harshman

@jmk00001

No need to exclude “the universe we observe” though. There is no logical contradiction between the universe we observe and such a God existing.

Now that’s where you’re wrong.

There is no logical contradiction involved in any of these questions or issues. The believer has myriad explanations or interpretations available to them that would explain these supposed contradictions. You might believe these explanations are a “stretch” or inadequate, but if any such explanation is even possible, there is no logical contradiction involved in this God existing.

Personally, I believe a universe in which humanity faces and overcomes adversity is a better universe than one in which that does not occur. A universe with obstacles, and even suffering, offers the possibility for or cultivation of such positives as bravery, compassion, generosity, perseverance, selfless sacrifice, an understanding of evil and its consequences, sympathy, empathy, etc. It is hard to imagine a world in which such things exist, at all or to the extent they do in our world, without any hardship or difficulty. A world that has such qualities, or inculcates them into humanity through experience, is (or leads to) a better world than one that does not. Again, you might find that unconvincing, but if it is even possible, there exists no contradiction.

[jmk00001]

@John_Harshman

@jmk00001

Really? No possibility at all? Like, logically impossible? I think we both know that is not true.

You would need the auxiliary hypothesis that we are incompetent to judge good and evil, so that what looks like evil to us is necessarily really good that we don’t understand. Is that what you rely on? That’s the usual defense of observed evil.

@jmk00001

I guess you mean if I ever utter words to the effect, “I am not capable of fully understanding or knowing the mind of God”?

No, you’re sneaking in some room that doesn’t exist there. You have to be entirely incapable of understanding or knowing anything whatsoever about the ming of God. But in such a circumstance, you can’t know that he’s actually good, much less omnibenevolent. You’re incompetent to judge, right?

I don’t follow. The only person who would be completely incompetent to judge what is good or evil is the sort of person you (most likely) claim to be, a person born into a godless, meaningless, universe. The big question, really, is how you can pretend that anything is really evil or good at all, or on what basis you believe the Old Testament God is a “monster” or not. You might say His actions appear incompatible with divine attributes as defined or derived from the Bible, but two things being contradictory do not necessarily entail one of those things being evil. I think it is obvious you go much further than pointing out contradictions. You really believe such a God would be a moral monster. But, according to who’s morality? Your made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary one?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@jmk00001

I don’t follow. The only person who would be completely incompetent to judge what is good or evil is the sort of person you (most likely) claim to be, a person born into a godless, meaningless, universe. The big question, really, is how you can pretend that anything is really evil or good at all, or on what basis you believe the Old Testament God is a “monster” or not.

Apologies, because I haven’t been following the discussion closely, but do you really think there is no secular basis for morality? That would be a different topic so I won’t pursue it here, but I hope you might reconsider this opinion.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@jmk00001

I agree that your comment was less representative of “animosity” than some of the others, but it still reveals, I think, an overall negative view or feeling toward God - that he is not doing enough, doesn’t care enough or involve Himself enough to alleviate human suffering, etc.

If that’s what you took me to mean, you were entirely mistaken. I neither meant nor implied any such thing. I merely observed an easily-observable fact: that we do not see any of the gods (not “God” – no such address known) doing anything at all.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@jmk00001

You really believe such a God would be a moral monster. But, according to who’s morality? Your made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary one?

Last I checked, @John_Harshman didn’t have a “made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary” morality. But it’s unclear why the moralities of any of the gods would be considered to be any less “made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary” than his.

[Tim]

I have to agree with Puck here.

It would seem obvious that in order to have “animosity” towards God you first need to have a reasonable degree of belief in God. You cannot have animosity towards something you don’t believe exists (yes Set, Loki, etc are really nasty gods – but I feel no more animosity towards them than towards a villain in a novel I’m reading) – so this would by definition exclude atheists. It’s a bit more blurry for agnostics, but would suspect that they likewise lack sufficient belief to get angry.

At some stage in the lives of many people that were raised as Christians, they encounter something that rubs their noses in the fact that the world they live in doesn’t match what they were taught in Sunday School. The obvious, and largely mutually-exclusive, choices are to stop believing in God or to get angry with God. They are largely mutually exclusive as it makes little sense to get angry at something you don’t believe exists. Those who stop believing become atheists or agnostics. Those who get angry, I suspect, have sufficient belief that they remain in their faith – though perhaps with their belief shaken, and their doubts awakening.

[jmk00001]

@John_Harshman

@jmk00001

Besides that, if you look at all the tremendous good belief in God has done throughout history, it becomes obvious that the consequences of that belief not being there throughout history (i.e., widespread unbelief) would have been tremendously negative.

Even if we credit your premise (we do not), the goodness of belief in God says nothing about whether God actually exists.

Agreed.

@Roy

You also have to look at the tremendous harm belief in gods has done throughout history. Religious wars and terrorism. Crusades. Genocides. Bigotry and racism. Inquisitions. Child abuse and protection of those responsible. Separating families. Forced conversions. Medical neglect. Witch trials and executions.

A lack of belief in moral accountability may not help, but belief that one is doing one’s god’s will can be actively harmful.

Besides the fact that such things are only immoral in a universe I believe we live in (and would not be evil in the universe you claim to live in), I never said no evil was ever done in the name of religion or that there have never been negative consequences of religious belief. The very idea that you are arguing that such things are evil at all proves my point about the vast goodness that resulted from belief in God, particularly in the West. It is to a large degree a consequence of the widespread belief in the Christian God that you deem all these things evil in the first place.

It is plainly obvious to anyone who can look at the world objectively, with even a minimal understanding of history, that all our modern notions of human rights, equality, tolerance, moral responsibilities - even the development of science itself - is largely the result of Christianity. Might science have eventually been developed somewhere else in the world? Eventually, perhaps, but in the world we actually do inhabit, the fact is that it developed in one place, not in the Far East, not in the Middle East, not in the New World. It was developed in that part of the world once called Christendom. Did other societies come up with inventions, such as gun powder? Sure, but none developed science (as anything close to how we define it today) except the Christian West. Where there ever conflicts between Christians and the religious powers-that-be? Sure, but virtually all the early scientists were devout Christians.

The same could be said for capitalism. There was no “Dark Age” of Medieval Europe. You can argue all day long about whether the Europeans who explored the New World were evil conquerors or not…but the reason they were the ones doing the exploring and conquering (vs. the other way around) is because they were more technologically advanced than the rest of the globe, and you can’t just chalk it up to ancient Greek philosophy and the Roman culture that died centuries earlier.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

It’s a bit more blurry for agnostics, but would suspect that they likewise lack sufficient belief to get angry.

There are times when I want to “complain to management” about the terrible way they run things. It’s pretty much the same as just “being angry” with or without “at God” following.

[Tim]

@jmk00001, as an atheist, I find your repeated denial of the existence of Secular Morality to be inaccurate (and more than a little personally offensive). This topic has already been discussed on this forum, most recently here, where @John_Harshman provides a good summary of potential non-religious sources of morality:

@John_Harshman

I see many sources. Evolved, inborn tendencies that exist within a social species, such as empathy, sympathy, a desire for fairness and justice, etc. Rules built upon those tendencies without which a society can’t function, rules impressed upon members of that society and maintained especially when they correspond well to those tendencies. What I don’t see is where gods would come into it. I’ll refer again to Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma.

[jmk00001]

My prior responses and the discussion overall seems to have, indeed, shifted off the original topic. To bring it home:

The reason I started this topic is that I was interested, as I mentioned, in how other atheists could or could not relate to Thomas Nagel’s statement that he didn’t want to live in universe where there is a God. The reason is that I believe, in the end, we all either choose to believe, or we don’t, and for many that choice boils down to the fact that they just don’t want there to be a God.

There are sufficient reasons and evidence to believe, if one wants to believe. Is there mathematical certitude? No. There is always room to dismiss such evidence if, like Nagel, one simply doesn’t want there to be a God. Most human decisions are made for emotional reasons…only later does the mind rationalize it’s way to some sort of reasonable or evidentiary justification for the decision. Of course, most will at once exclaim, “While this is true for most of you peons, it isn’t at all true for me!. I am purely rational and base my beliefs only on the soundest of foundations!” Sound familiar?

Being the skeptic is always the easy route. It is immeasurably harder to make a case for anything, than it is to critique said case. The atheist can sit back and say, "Go on, believer! Amuse me with your ‘evidence’ and ‘reasons’! They can sit back and wait for any deficiency in knowledge, any flaw in a premise, any wiggle room in an explanation, and claim all such arguments fall short of their lofty, lofty standards. The truth is, none of us know for certain whether God exists. There is a leap of faith in either direction, because there is not sufficient evidence in either direction to say with ontological certitude one way or the other.

In Christianity, though, there is moral culpability in the decision we make. We either accept God, or we reject him, and there is moral culpability in that choice for all of us. So, the evidence, I think by design, is not absolutely overwhelming. You can always find the evidence was “just too scant for me” or the Christians were just “too ignorant or hypocritical” or the world was just “too filled with evil and suffering” for there to be a God. In the end, it comes down to a personal, moral choice we all must make. As Blaise Pascal said:

In faith, there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Claiming that a person or persons are generally incapable of human feelings and responses is offensive. Let’s not have that - please use flags if it comes up again.

[not intended to exclude discussion of morality, but to exclude that some are incapable of it]

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@jmk00001

Of course, most will at once exclaim, “While this is true for most of you peons, it isn’t at all true for me!. I am purely rational and base my beliefs only on the soundest of foundations!” Sound familiar?

I think it’s clear enough that a person who insists he’s purely rational isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that people who don’t insist they are purely rational aren’t doing a good job of reasoning. Nor does it mean that everyone is involved in motivated reasoning. And many of us lack motives in that direction anyhow. I really don’t care which of the gods are real and which aren’t, or whether all or none are real, as such. What I care about is finding out what the true facts of the matter are.

@jmk00001

The truth is, none of us know for certain whether God exists.

Sure.

@jmk00001

There is a leap of faith in either direction, because there is not sufficient evidence in either direction to say with ontological certitude one way or the other.

No, there isn’t. Most atheists don’t claim to know there are not any gods. They just don’t believe in any of them in particular. No leap of faith required.

@jmk00001

In Christianity, though, there is moral culpability in the decision we make.

That doctrine, of course, is pernicious and evil. That a person should be condemned for making an honest judgment upon incomplete evidence is insane.

[Tim]

@jmk00001

There are sufficient reasons and evidence to believe, if one wants to believe.

I would point out that this is a claim that all atheists would dispute. When you base your understanding of atheists on such Christian presuppositions you cannot help but gain a very biased view of atheist thinking.

@jmk00001

Being the skeptic is always the easy route.

Tell that to the atheists in Muslim contries who are liable to be executed for their apostasy.

@jmk00001

In Christianity, though, there is moral culpability in the decision we make …

I have to ask, are you here to sincerely inquire what Atheists really think, or to simply look for confirmation of your prior conclusions about them, and to preach at them?

[jmk00001]

@Tim

@jmk00001, as an atheist, I find your repeated denial of the existence of Secular Morality to be inaccurate (and more than a little personally offensive). This topic has already been discussed on this forum, most recently here, where @John_Harshman provides a good summary of potential non-religious sources of morality:

@John_Harshman

I see many sources. Evolved, inborn tendencies that exist within a social species, such as empathy, sympathy, a desire for fairness and justice, etc. Rules built upon those tendencies without which a society can’t function, rules impressed upon members of that society and maintained especially when they correspond well to those tendencies. What I don’t see is where gods would come into it. I’ll refer again to Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma.

Sorry, I do not mean to offend. As I mentioned before…I actually believe you have the same moral foundation as I do (one of us just doesn’t recognize it as such). I just mean to point out that any such inborn tendencies as you describe above could not ultimately be deemed a foundation for any absolute morality. If for instance, if some person were to be born without one or more of those tendencies, and acts accordingly, did they do something evil in any real sense? Or someone who determines a course of action that, while frowned upon by his peers, would not result in the collapse of his society, and would, for him at least, be more beneficial than detrimental. Did he do something evil in any real sense? I’ve heard such arguments made for these alternate systems of morality, but I just don’t see, in the end, how they could really amount to any individual specific act being immoral. Would it only become immoral if sufficient numbers of people in society began doing it and society started to show noticeable deleterious effects? If so, how many people must “go against the grain” and generate sufficient “damage” to society for something to be deemed immoral? If everyone else stops at the four-way stop intersection, but I pass on through, is society really harmed? It seems to me, as long as everyone else stops (and thereby do not collide with me), no harm done!

Again, sorry if all this is now off-topic. That is why I tried to sum up and bring things back to topic in my earlier post. Just wanted to clarify my earlier comment since you took offense.

[Faizal_Ali]

@jmk00001

There are sufficient reasons and evidence to believe, if one wants to believe.

Of course, just as there are sufficient reasons and evidence to support that the earth is flat for people sufficiently motivated to believe it.

I fail to see what you think is interesting or important about that observation.

Anyway, since I and others have openly and clearly stated that we would like the god you describe to exist, your thesis that atheism is just an emotionally based belief does not seem to be supported. So, great! You have learned one of your arguments is lousy and won’t use it anymore! That’s a good thing.

@jmk00001

The truth is, none of us know for certain whether God exists. There is a leap of faith in either direction, because there is not sufficient evidence in either direction to say with ontological certitude one way or the other.

There is not enough evidence to say much of anything with “ontological certainty” (which is what I think you meant to say, rather than “certitude.”) I can’t say with absolute certainty that the moon is smaller than the sun. Maybe there is a trickster god who just wants us to think that? Could be, if we are expected to remain open to the possibility that your nice god exists.

@jmk00001

In Christianity, though, there is moral culpability in the decision we make. We either accept God, or we reject him, and there is moral culpability in that choice for all of us

Well, that’s a really weird position. How is coming to a conclusion that you feel is best supported by reason and evidence an immoral act? You are going to have to connect the dots for me on that one.

@jmk00001

In the end, it comes down to a personal, moral choice we all must make. As Blaise Pascal said:

In faith, there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.

Yup, which is why faith is at best useless, and not uncommonly actually dangerous. I try to avoid that crap as best I can.

[jmk00001]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Last I checked, @John_Harshman didn’t have a “made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary” morality. But it’s unclear why the moralities of any of the gods would be considered to be any less “made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary” than his.

Of course, I actually don’t believe his morality is made up, utterly baseless and arbitrary. He, like all of us, have been given an inner sense of morality founded in the identity, character, and personhood of God. My point is that without that God, you have only a completely manmade morality that must, in the end, be arbitrary and made up - a list of personal preferences and nothing more. And, evolutionarily speaking, I don’t believe there is anything good or evil in blind evolutionary forces. Something isn’t good or evil, it just is.