Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[Davian]

Bump

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I still say nonsensical in part because it seems that the concept is structured in a way that can never be proven or disapproved.

One can not observe God, heaven, out hell in an objective way.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yeah. Still makes no sense, except as an imaginary concept.

 

[True Scotsman]

For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. How much sense does God make to you? I'm talking about the idea of God as a concept and an entity, whether or not he exists. E.g., does God sound like madness, does his existence make a lot of sense, moderate sense but you still have a few questions?

If you answer, "it depends," then if you had to choose a definition that seemed most reasonable to you (i.e., one you would have if you were a theist), how much sense does this preferred conception of God make...?

Zero.

 

[TillICollapse]

The problem is probably more fundamental. The problem is thinking that a church can or should define God.

La religione deve lasciare che dio parli per se stesso

Religion must let God speak for himself

One of my favorite sig quotes on this forum.


Take it one step further, and remove the term "religion" altogether and add context: should God let God speak for himself only ?

Take a person (for the hypothetical) who would typically be considered intelligent, who is in the public eye in some fashion. In what instances would it be reasonable for such a person to let gossip, speculation, accusations, assumptions, etc ... just run rampant without correcting them ad infinitum, overall; and in what instances would it be beneficial for them to step up and correct misrepresentations and false accusations, or perhaps even silence them ?

 

[talquin]

For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. How much sense does God make to you? I'm talking about the idea of God as a concept and an entity, whether or not he exists. E.g., does God sound like madness, does his existence make a lot of sense, moderate sense but you still have a few questions?

If you answer, "it depends," then if you had to choose a definition that seemed most reasonable to you (i.e., one you would have if you were a theist), how much sense does this preferred conception of God make...?

The concept of a spaceless, timeless personal being who knows everything and can do anything makes absolutely no sense at all.

BTW, your poll choices suggest that you think atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive. One can be both atheist and agnostic.

 

[variant]

Take it one step further, and remove the term "religion" altogether and add context: should God let God speak for himself only ?

Take a person (for the hypothetical) who would typically be considered intelligent, who is in the public eye in some fashion. In what instances would it be reasonable for such a person to let gossip, speculation, accusations, assumptions, etc ... just run rampant without correcting them ad infinitum, overall; and in what instances would it be beneficial for them to step up and correct misrepresentations and false accusations, or perhaps even silence them ?

I would assume that my statement implies that I think any Gods that exist should speak clearly for themselves.

 

[TillICollapse]

I would assume that my statement implies that I think any Gods that exist should speak clearly for themselves.

Yes I know, I was taking it a step further ... are there any instances or contexts you can envision where any Gods that exist and can speak clearly for themselves, shouldn't do so, and it would be reasonable why they wouldn't ? Similarly, are there instances or contexts where you could envision it would be reasonable or understandable for such a being to let speculation concerning them run rampant, or even direct falsehoods, etc, without correcting it at each point (or maybe any points for that matter) ... and at what point should they take the time to correct such things, or perhaps even silence them to where the ONLY voice speaking about such a being is that being itself ?

What I'm thinking as a parallel, would be a politician for example, or other public figure, who may have controversy or speculation surrounding them, yet they don't take the time to address every rumor, every falsehood, every tabloid, etc. Sometimes they do address things, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they ignore, sometimes they go through much effort to correct and qualify. Some attempt to silence or limit such talk, etc.

 

[variant]

Yes I know, I was taking it a step further ... are there any instances or contexts you can envision where any Gods that exist and can speak clearly for themselves, shouldn't do so, and it would be reasonable why they wouldn't ?

Similarly, are there instances or contexts where you could envision it would be reasonable or understandable for such a being to let speculation concerning them run rampant, or even direct falsehoods, etc, without correcting it at each point (or maybe any points for that matter) ... and at what point should they take the time to correct such things, or perhaps even silence them to where the ONLY voice speaking about such a being is that being itself ?

Yes when they are running experiments (for instance).

What I'm thinking as a parallel, would be a politician for example, or other public figure, who may have controversy or speculation surrounding them, yet they don't take the time to address every rumor, every falsehood, every tabloid, etc. Sometimes they do address things, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they ignore, sometimes they go through much effort to correct and qualify. Some attempt to silence or limit such talk, etc.

Minutia isn't necessary for clarity.

The reason for the varied response though is generally that the things you address you care about.

Supposing of course that Gods care about things like people do or react in a social manner to slander, I think your question supposes a personal God that cares what humanity thinks is going on.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

None.

An all-loving God who is going to torture you for all eternity, no matter how good you are, for the crime of not being gullible, is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes when they are running experiments (for instance).

Minutia isn't necessary for clarity.

Good point about minutia and clarity.

The reason for the varied response though is generally that the things you address you care about.

In some instances, yes of course.

Supposing of course that Gods care about things like people do or react in a social manner to slander, I think your question supposes a personal God that cares what humanity thinks is going on.

Yeah I was trying to frame it in certain contexts without putting out too many presumptions about qualities such a being may or may not have, other than the fact they were capable of speaking for themselves. My parallel analogy would seem to presuppose a lot, but I was only putting it out there as one possible example of what such a being may or may not speak to, IOW.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. How much sense does God make to you? I'm talking about the idea of God as a concept and an entity, whether or not he exists. E.g., does God sound like madness, does his existence make a lot of sense, moderate sense but you still have a few questions?

If you answer, "it depends," then if you had to choose a definition that seemed most reasonable to you (i.e., one you would have if you were a theist), how much sense does this preferred conception of God make...?

Obviously, I cannot make sense of a lot of the traditional concepts associated with god. Things like being "timeless" or omnipotent or omniscient, etc. make absolutely zero sense to me. All such terms are either self-contradictory or logically impossible. So if we drop those concepts and focus on a universe/life creating deity with various other super-powers...

I'd say the concept that makes the most sense is some sort of infantile/emotionally handicapped/mildly sadistic god. There are certain aspects of reality that don't mesh well with a benevolent (or even just good) god. For one, any god that demands worship, requires you to view him as your lord and savior under threat of punishment, creates what amounts to a deadly trap and then places you inside it and expects you to thank him for letting you out....this kind of god appears to be very juvenile and childish. Most mature adult people would never make the kind of demands god makes of mankind simply because no one is that vain/prideful/sadistic. Sure, there may be a few adults who act in such a way...but we would look at them as mentally damaged sociopaths. Worse still is if you believe the bible is the word of god...the way he characterizes his own behavior reveals he understands little to nothing about love, sacrifice, or justice. In god's mind, these concepts are all severely distorted.

So god's behavior reveals him to be childish, immature, emotionally stunted...what do his creations say about him? Well, he's created a universe where everything must devour something living to survive...clearly it doesn't have to be this way. He's placed the vast majority of resources out of reach of us...and made most environments completely deadly and uninhabitable. He's made it so everything alive must engage in a deadly struggle with everything else to survive and thrive. Why create a universe like this? The only logical answer seems to be sadism. He delights in watching his creations struggle and fight each other just to survive...clearly a hallmark of sadism. One could say it's outright evil, but that assumes a lot.

 

[variant]

Yeah I was trying to frame it in certain contexts without putting out too many presumptions about qualities such a being may or may not have, other than the fact they were capable of speaking for themselves. My parallel analogy would seem to presuppose a lot, but I was only putting it out there as one possible example of what such a being may or may not speak to, IOW.

I think the further we go trying to puzzle the concept out from our perspective says a lot about us, but I don't know that it gets us anywhere from an objective perspective.

The problem here is that we would need clear input and what we get is billions of people thinking thoughts.

Of course this is why I revert to the simplest and most obvious conclusion for the lack of communication.

 

[keith99]

I can't answer without knowing far more about what claims are made for God.

All powerful, made everything, it is all his plan and he is benevolent.

Nah, I'm not drinking that koolaid.

A God who is good but facing an entity nearly as powerful as He is or perhaps even more powerful. Something like Gandalf facing Sauron. That is quite believable. But you will not see men flocking to such a banner, after all it means they are likely going to their own destruction.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think the further we go trying to puzzle the concept out from our perspective says a lot about us,

Indeed

but I don't know that it gets us anywhere from an objective perspective.

Hmm ... idk. I'd have to put forth effort to see if I could find an example where I thought it did ... however I can see where attempting to puzzle it out helps us to better understand our own response, which circles back around to the first part of your sentence here.

The problem here is that we would need clear input and what we get is billions of people thinking thoughts.

Of course this is why I revert to the simplest and most obvious conclusion for the lack of communication.

Yup.

 

[Deidre32]

I can't answer without knowing far more about what claims are made for God.

All powerful, made everything, it is all his plan and he is benevolent.

Nah, I'm not drinking that koolaid.

A God who is good but facing an entity nearly as powerful as He is or perhaps even more powerful. Something like Gandalf facing Sauron. That is quite believable. But you will not see men flocking to such a banner, after all it means they are likely going to their own destruction.

What do you feel about Deism? Not all beliefs in God center around the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Received]

Antiquated bump

 

[keith99]

What do you feel about Deism? Not all beliefs in God center around the Abrahamic faiths.

I have trouble seeing any value in a system that postulates a creator who then will forever be undetectable. It sounds rather like the religious version of methadone. Something to replace the heroin of the Abrahamic and other faiths that claim a more hands on God.

 

[SkyWriting]

None.

An all-loving God who is going to torture you for all eternity, no matter how good you are, for the crime of not being gullible, is ridiculous in my opinion.

God doesn't torture. People experience internal torment
based on how they have lived their lives.

 

[TillICollapse]

I have trouble seeing any value in a system that postulates a creator who then will forever be undetectable. It sounds rather like the religious version of methadone. Something to replace the heroin of the Abrahamic and other faiths that claim a more hands on God.

Hmm. I don't know about that. Though I have only interacted with a few deists. I'm not sure believing there is a non-personal or non-intervening creator need be much more than a mental exercise that simply chooses an origin-story option, without fulfilling some "crutch" need. Rather than a religious version of methadone, I'd think of it more like the religious version of a Starbucks order.