God is the Devil?

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from vhehn:

if god exists and if man uses his intelligence to examine the evidence and determines that that there is no god who is the failure? man or a supposedly omnipotent god who could provide evidence to prove he exists but refuses to do so. then this supposedly loving god who refuses to provide evidence condems all who dont believe to an eternity of torture.
you call this loving?

There is plenty of evidence if you use your common sense. Just look at the world. Look at how advanced a simple tomato seed is. It runs on hydro-solar power and produces food that is good to eat. This is so much more complex than any machine a man has ever invented. You look at the marvelous creation of the world and know it had to have a creator.

If you seek God, you will find him. But you wont seek him because you made up your mind, long before you weighed both sides of the evidence.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

There is plenty of evidence if you use your common sense. Just look at the world. Look at how advanced a simple tomato seed is. It runs on hydro-solar power and produces food that is good to eat. This is so much more complex than any machine a man has ever invented. You look at the marvelous creation of the world and know it had to have a creator.

If you seek God, you will find him. But you wont seek him because you made up your mind, long before you weighed both sides of the evidence.

God is not a personality. Its the organizing intelligence/force that connects all the dots, runs everything.

 

[stu]

Quote from Hansel H:

Perhaps those of us who examine indications of the non-existence of God (whatever that could possibly be) are selectively assigning 'evidence' status to mere indications of a possibility and then proceeding to a conclusion that suits their personal needs.

That's like saying perhaps those of us who examine indications of jumping 1,000feet off a cliff onto the rocks below are selectively assigning 'evidence' status as mere indications of a possibility and then proceeding to a conclusion of terminal injury that suits their personal needs.

Quote from Hansel H:

In any case, God can't spell it out for us without making us lesser beings.

God can't do something? That's a bit unorthodox isn't it?
Well, if God can't think of a way of doing that, I can, and in truth probably so can just about everyone else.

Quote from Hansel H:

And let's forget all that fire and brimstone stuff; it's an anachronistic contradiction left over from the Old, Old Testament and it will all be omitted in the next evolutionary stage of the Bible.

The next Bible will be an extremely quick read then.

Quote from Hansel H:

If God simply bestowed a perfect understanding on us there would be no need for us to have either intelligence or free will. There would be nothing to differentiate us from the termite whose understanding of its world is instinctual (God-given) and whose actions are determined soley by automatic responses to stimuli in its environment.

No way. God could easily bestow 'a perfect understanding' without the need to forego intelligence and free will.

Quote from Hansel H:

So why does God give us intelligence and free will? We are made in God's image - that is, God, like us, has intelligence and free will. In this way we are God's children - created so that God could have something to love in an otherwise dead and deterministic world.

God then gives limited intelligence and no free will. Where is the free will in death? Where exactly is the free will in having to be "saved". Or in having to be judged because wrong was dressed up as right by some imaginary goblin-angel or other?
What is there at all intelligent in the practice of self-delusion and religious ritual?

This God of yours has some very strange ideas in giving. Unbelievable I would say.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from jficquette:

God is not a personality. Its the organizing intelligence/force that connects all the dots, runs everything.

Good point. God might not be a 'personality' as we understand the term.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from Hansel H:

Good point. God might not be a 'personality' as we understand the term.

Giving it a personality is an attempt to put a human face on what is not understood.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from stu:

Stu: That's like saying perhaps those of us who examine indications of jumping 1,000feet off a cliff onto the rocks below are selectively assigning 'evidence' status as mere indications of a possibility and then proceeding to a conclusion of terminal injury that suits their personal needs.

Hans: No comparison. The indications from our personal experiences of the effects of jumping off things coupled with the thousands of examples of people being killed after falling off or being thrown from cliffs are fairly classifiable as inarguable evidence. The indications of the non-existence of God are all arguable.
--------

S: God can't do something? That's a bit unorthodox isn't it?
Well, if God can't think of a way of doing that, I can, and in truth probably so can just about everyone else.

H: The concept of an omnipotent God is hard to defend because of the logical quandaries that it engenders. We have an example of that here; even God can't have things both ways - man as possessor of intelligence and free will and man as mere pawn on God's chessboard. I'll concede that even God must make choices.
----------


S: The next Bible will be an extremely quick read then.

H: A scripture needn't be lengthy to be valid. The weaknesses in the Bible are rooted in it's containing too much material extraneous to its principal message.
---------

S: No way. God could easily bestow 'a perfect understanding' without the need to forego intelligence and free will.

H: If we had a perfect understanding both intelligence and free will would be irrelevant. With an inborn understanding why would we need to figure anything out? Why would we need to make choices when our perfect understanding makes every decision absolutely obvious. We would live automatically, like bacteria. Perfect understanding couldn't work for us as we are constituted.
----------

S: God then gives limited intelligence and no free will. Where is the free will in death? Where exactly is the free will in having to be "saved". Or in having to be judged because wrong was dressed up as right by some imaginary goblin-angel or other?
What is there at all intelligent in the practice of self-delusion and religious ritual?

H: OK, so our intelligence is limited (no surprise there), but it has to be be limited or it wouldn't be intelligence since intelligence is a process and an unlimited process is impossible. Our glory lies in our need to struggle; although our powers are similar in essence to those of God they are much lesser in terms of extent.

We have no free will because we die? What about our innumerable opportunities to make choices while we live?

When being saved is a choice (when we are aware of the choice)then choosing/rejecting being saved is an exercise of free will.

If Satan, the Devil or whatever is able to deceive us it's that we want to be deceived. The Devil tempts us with choices contrary to the guidance from God and this is how we identify the Devil in disguise. Ask Elvis.
--------------

S: This God of yours has some very strange ideas in giving. Unbelievable I would say.

H: You have applied your intelligence and made a choice. God is pleased that you are using your gifts.

God be with you brother Stu.

 

[stu]

Quote from Hansel H:
No comparison. The indications from our personal experiences of the effects of jumping off things coupled with the thousands of examples of people being killed after falling off or being thrown from cliffs are fairly classifiable as inarguable evidence. The indications of the non-existence of God are all arguable.

Yes comparison.
The conclusion it exists in fact that one incurs fatal injury from such a fall is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs.

The conclusion that it exists in fact that no one ever establishes the actual existence of God, is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs.

Imagining God does exist when there is no existence of that fact, especially when there is a standard for existence to be factually measured , as in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison, is proceeding to a conclusion of existence that suits personal needs.

You don't need to similarly imagine - God does not exist - to realize there is no actual existence of God to notice. The 'evidence' is blindingly obvious.

Quote from Hansel H:

The concept of an omnipotent God is hard to defend because of the logical quandaries that it engenders. We have an example of that here; even God can't have things both ways - man as possessor of intelligence and free will and man as mere pawn on God's chessboard. I'll concede that even God must make choices.

I acknowledge you recognize the omnipotent God logical quandary. Why would you choose not to recognize the God logical quandary?

Quote from Hansel H:

A scripture needn't be lengthy to be valid. The weaknesses in the Bible are rooted in it's containing too much material extraneous to its principal message.

Ok I was being flippant about the size. But nevertheless, I think it would be fair to say thousands of religious sects would still argue as to what that principal message might be whether the Bible is long or a one pager.

Quote from Hansel H:

If we had a perfect understanding both intelligence and free will would be irrelevant. With an inborn understanding why would we need to figure anything out? Why would we need to make choices when our perfect understanding makes every decision absolutely obvious. We would live automatically, like bacteria. Perfect understanding couldn't work for us as we are constituted.

How do you know that? Perfect understanding might just as likely be desirable and satisfyingly complete.
Aren't you demonstrating a somewhat emotional disposition proceeding to conclusions that suits your personal needs here?

Quote from Hansel H:

OK, so our intelligence is limited (no surprise there), but it has to be be limited or it wouldn't be intelligence since intelligence is a process and an unlimited process is impossible. Our glory lies in our need to struggle; although our powers are similar in essence to those of God they are much lesser in terms of extent.

There's no glory in the need to struggle from starvation, or struggle with excruciatingly painful diseases. Don't talk nonsense.

Quote from Hansel H:

We have no free will because we die? What about our innumerable opportunities to make choices while we live?

Opportunities to make choices is not free will. Free will is a big item, not a namby-pamby some here - not some there thing.
And no, you have no free will in whether you die or not.

Quote from Hansel H:

When being saved is a choice (when we are aware of the choice)then choosing/rejecting being saved is an exercise of free will.

It is no choice to have to throw all your integrity overboard and go against every understanding and every fiber of your being to choose something you cannot honestly believe in to be imaginarily "saved".

Quote from Hansel H:

If Satan, the Devil or whatever is able to deceive us it's that we want to be deceived. The Devil tempts us with choices contrary to the guidance from God and this is how we identify the Devil in disguise. Ask Elvis.

Elvis knows shit. He can't even get back from Mars.
Anyway stop making up silly excuses. "We" don't want to be deceived by anything, especially nonsensical imaginings.

This Satan dude, according to Murray T and many other prisoners of religion, makes you think wrong is right. You have no choice to do right unless you choose to do wrong.

This is nothing to do with weak minded temptations. You are indoctrinated to make choices where no choices sensibly should or need be made.

Quote from Hansel H:

H: You have applied your intelligence and made a choice. God is pleased that you are using your gifts.

Damn right . But if you don't mind If God is pleased, let God tell me, not you.

Quote from Hansel H:

God be with you brother Stu.

Quite honestly I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

all the best though
stu

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from stu:

Yes comparison.
The conclusion it exists in fact that one incurs fatal injury from such a fall is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs.

The conclusion that it exists in fact that no one ever establishes the actual existence of God, is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs.

Imagining God does exist when there is no existence of that fact, especially when there is a standard for existence to be factually measured , as in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison, is proceeding to a conclusion of existence that suits personal needs.

You don't need to similarly imagine - God does not exist - to realize there is no actual existence of God to notice. The 'evidence' is blindingly obvious.

H: I see. I missed your original point. Then let me disagree completely with the point you seem to be making here. You imply that the believer is motivated by a need to believe while the non-believer is not motivated by a need to disbelieve. Why should the believer find more comfort in his belief than the disbeliever finds in his disbelief? Surely the notion that one can live one's life with complete freedom from divine scrutiny is easier to deal with than the belief that one is being constantly monitored by some omnipotent or near-omnipotent being. And the belief that the end is truly the end - no sins to atone for, no possibility of suffering ever again, and no mystery about what may lie beyond must be liberating and reassuring. The atheist can gain comfort from his beliefs just as the theist might from his.

And the 'evidence' for the non-existence of God is not obvious; if it is please provide an example. 'God is non-existent' is merely a position based not on evidence but on preference.


S:I acknowledge you recognize the omnipotent God logical quandary. Why would you choose not to recognize the God logical quandary?

H: The God logical quandary is no more a logical quandary than any other explanation for existence given that all explanations are non-logical and that there are no degrees of non-logic.



S: Ok I was being flippant about the size. But nevertheless, I think it would be fair to say thousands of religious sects would still argue as to what that principal message might be whether the Bible is long or a one pager.

H: Well, that's for those thousands of sects to work out; I am referring only to what I regard as the principal message of the Bible (more specifically the New Testament).

S: How do you know that? Perfect understanding might just as likely be desirable and satisfyingly complete.
Aren't you demonstrating a somewhat emotional disposition proceeding to conclusions that suits your personal needs here?

H: It might be satisfying as a kind of completion to beings constituted differently from ourselves. We have no reason to believe that perfect understanding is compatible with our natures or our limitations.

And no, I'm not particularly passionate about this point and find no satisfaction in believing that we are limited.


S: There's no glory in the need to struggle from starvation, or struggle with excruciatingly painful diseases. Don't talk nonsense.

H: Struggle makes us strong; our capacity to fight and endure has made us the planet's dominant species. The requirement to fight (lions, insects, disease, each other, whatever) motivates us to maintain our faculties. When we have reached a level of technological refinement that allows us to survive without struggling we will rot and waste away. We are puny and very vulnerable beings who through will and determination have attained supremacy; in this sense we are glorious.

S: Opportunities to make choices is not free will. Free will is a big item, not a namby-pamby some here - not some there thing.
And no, you have no free will in whether you die or not.

H: The fact that we can't always exercise our free will doesn't indicate that we don't have free will; when we do have a choice we have an opportunity to exercise our free will and we often have choices. Free will is an element of human nature and as such is a constant; the ability to exercise that free will is not.

S: ........ is no choice to have to throw all your integrity overboard and go against every understanding and every fiber of your being to choose something you cannot honestly believe in to be imaginarily "saved".

H: True, if you're an atheist, but if you are a Christian you honestly believe that being saved is a desirable goal and compromise your integrity in no way by pursuing it.


Elvis knows shit. He can't even get back from Mars.
Anyway stop making up silly excuses. "We" don't want to be deceived by anything, especially nonsensical imaginings.

H: Not consciously perhaps. And atheism may be a nonsensical imagining.

S: This Satan dude, according to Murray T and many other prisoners of religion, makes you think wrong is right. You have no choice to do right unless you choose to do wrong.

H: If Satan can exercise mind-control then we are blameless but if Satan seduces us merely with 'devilish logic' then we are responsible for allowing ourselves to accept whatever thinking leads us to conclusions that go counter to God's expressed will.

S: This is nothing to do with weak minded temptations. You are indoctrinated to make choices where no choices sensibly should or need be made.

H: So say you, who rejects the whole of Biblical thinking. For those who believe in God/Christ these choices may be necessary.





S: Damn right . But if you don't mind If God is pleased, let God tell me, not you.

H: God won't tell you; a direct communication from God would contravene the Prime Directive of non-interference.


S: Quite honestly I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

H: You have enemies?



S: all the best though

H: Likewise.

 

[stu]

Quote from Hansel H:
I see. I missed your original point. Then let me disagree completely with the point you seem to be making here. You imply that the believer is motivated by a need to believe while the non-believer is not motivated by a need to disbelieve. Why should the believer find more comfort in his belief than the disbeliever finds in his disbelief? Surely the notion that one can live one's life with complete freedom from divine scrutiny is easier to deal with than the belief that one is being constantly monitored by some omnipotent or near-omnipotent being. And the belief that the end is truly the end - no sins to atone for, no possibility of suffering ever again, and no mystery about what may lie beyond must be liberating and reassuring. The atheist can gain comfort from his beliefs just as the theist might from his.

Fair points, but you are raising further issues now. Correct me if I misunderstood, but the original point you made was that the atheist is proceeding to a conclusion that suits their personal needs.
My comparison suggests, successfully dare I say, that it's quite the opposite.

The theist must proceed to a conclusion of existence which is suiting their personal needs, because there is non of that 'evidence' in actual or realistic expected outcomes, as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks example.

On the other hand, the atheist is obliged by the blindingly obvious to recognize there is no such 'evidence' as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison and therefore does not then need to proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs. At that point they are merely dealing with the reality of the fact as exhibited, that there is no evidence of existence. Right there - God does not exist.

Therefore the theist must convince himself of things in different ways which are not apparent or even suggested by the overwhelming realities in the comparison, so that it suits their personal needs. Ie God exists somewhere else in a different way than the cliff/fall/rocks example. That is now what suits their personal needs.

Quote from Hansel H:
And the 'evidence' for the non-existence of God is not obvious; if it is please provide an example. 'God is non-existent' is merely a position based not on evidence but on preference

The 'evidence' for the non-existence of God is right there in the comparison. It does not represent a preference to a non-existence. It IS the non-existence.

Existence – in the reality of cliffs, 1000ft drop , rocks and the likely certain obvious outcome is there, based on evidence.
Existence – in the reality of God and the likely certain obvious outcome is not there, and is not based on that evidence.
That is a definite non existence of God right there.
It does not mean God does not exist by some other so called evidence, but it is patently not to the standard of evidence cliff/fall/rocks achieves, so the theist must now proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs.

Quote from Hansel H:
The God logical quandary is no more a logical quandary than any other explanation for existence given that all explanations are non-logical and that there are no degrees of non-logic.

I find that to be incoherent. Do you care to explain?

Quote from Hansel H:
Well, that's for those thousands of sects to work out; I am referring only to what I regard as the principal message of the Bible (more specifically the New Testament).

In doing so you have proceeded to a conclusion which is suiting your personal needs. In that regard one becomes just another sect.

Quote from Hansel H:
It might be satisfying as a kind of completion to beings constituted differently from ourselves. We have no reason to believe that perfect understanding is compatible with our natures or our limitations.

And no, I'm not particularly passionate about this point and find no satisfaction in believing that we are limited.

Then I do not see your point why an inborn perfect understanding would make life automatic like bacteria as you put it, and intelligence and free will - (the latter which we don’t actually have) - irrelevant. Isn’t it an extremely limited understanding that makes bacteria automatic that way? With more understanding, why then would perfect understanding have you living like bacteria?

Quote from Hansel H:
Struggle makes us strong; our capacity to fight and endure has made us the planet's dominant species. The requirement to fight (lions, insects, disease, each other, whatever) motivates us to maintain our faculties. When we have reached a level of technological refinement that allows us to survive without struggling we will rot and waste away. We are puny and very vulnerable beings who through will and determination have attained supremacy; in this sense we are glorious.

So why would the maintaining of survival without struggle with disease and death because of an inborn perfect understanding mean we will rot and waste away? It appears your inspiration only works as far as people suffer and die. Once you’ve reached a perfect level of understanding so that "lions, insects, disease, each other, whatever" don’t actually kill you anymore, and don’t struggle with the problem any more, why would you rot away because of that?
Perfect understanding doesn’t mean there are not things to find or discover. Perfect understanding does not necessarily equate to all knowledge and no struggle.
Humanity survives despite suffering and death not because of it. I suggest there are better things to do and struggle with than a conditional suffering in order to call ourselves glorious.

Quote from Hansel H:
The fact that we can't always exercise our free will doesn't indicate that we don't have free will; when we do have a choice we have an opportunity to exercise our free will and we often have choices. Free will is an element of human nature and as such is a constant; the ability to exercise that free will is not.

Choice is not the same as free will. The non-ability to exercise free will is not free will.

Quote from Hansel H:
True, if you're an atheist, but if you are a Christian you honestly believe that being saved is a desirable goal and compromise your integrity in no way by pursuing it.

Then it is not a choice nor is it free will for the atheist. You keep saying there is free will where there is no such thing.

Quote from Hansel H:
Not consciously perhaps. And atheism may be a nonsensical imagining.

An atheist has no imaginings of God, so you suggest non-imaginings are imaginings and they are nonsensical.. Come on Hansel don’t get too ridiculous .

Quote from Hansel H:
If Satan can exercise mind-control then we are blameless but if Satan seduces us merely with 'devilish logic' then we are responsible for allowing ourselves to accept whatever thinking leads us to conclusions that go counter to God's expressed will.

Devilish logic that leads you to think you know what goes counter to God's expressed will by deciding to dismiss the Old Testament for instance.?
Seems to me you already proceed to a conclusion which is suiting your personal needs

Quote from Hansel H:
So say you, who rejects the whole of Biblical thinking. For those who believe in God/Christ these choices may be necessary.

As opposed to what, someone such as yourself who rejects half of it?

Quote from Hansel H:
God won't tell you; a direct communication from God would contravene the Prime Directive of non-interference

Well I think you’ll find your God had already broken that rule and severely interfered before Starfleet Command made it their own.

Quote from Hansel H:
You have enemies?

I count myself fortunate in not having imaginary God as any sort of an enemy and non-existent God doesn’t register as one anyway.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from stu:

Stu: Fair points, but you are raising further issues now. Correct me if I misunderstood, but the original point you made was that the atheist is proceeding to a conclusion that suits their personal needs.
My comparison suggests, successfully dare I say, that it's quite the opposite.

The theist must proceed to a conclusion of existence which is suiting their personal needs, because there is non of that 'evidence' in actual or realistic expected outcomes, as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks example.

On the other hand, the atheist is obliged by the blindingly obvious to recognize there is no such 'evidence' as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison and therefore does not then need to proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs. At that point they are merely dealing with the reality of the fact as exhibited, that there is no evidence of existence. Right there - God does not exist.

Therefore the theist must convince himself of things in different ways which are not apparent or even suggested by the overwhelming realities in the comparison, so that it suits their personal needs. Ie God exists somewhere else in a different way than the cliff/fall/rocks example. That is now what suits their personal needs.


The 'evidence' for the non-existence of God is right there in the comparison. It does not represent a preference to a non-existence. It IS the non-existence.

Existence – in the reality of cliffs, 1000ft drop , rocks and the likely certain obvious outcome is there, based on evidence.
Existence – in the reality of God and the likely certain obvious outcome is not there, and is not based on that evidence.
That is a definite non existence of God right there.
It does not mean God does not exist by some other so called evidence, but it is patently not to the standard of evidence cliff/fall/rocks achieves, so the theist must now proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs.

H: So, summing up, the evidence of the non-existence of God is blindingly obvious because the evidence for the existence of God is not up the standards of the evidence re the consequences of jumping off cliffs.

Cliff and rock evidence doesn't support the atheist's, the theist's or any other theory about the essence and origins of being. It doesn't follow that because there's no God evidence equivalent to cliff evidence that there's no God; there's no non-God evidence equivalent to cliff evidence.

The evidence for God is inferential. The theist infers God from the character of the world. The atheist, of course, may infer non-God from the same. It's a matter of what the theist/atheist selects as his evidence
_________

S: I find that to be incoherent. Do you care to explain?

H: I'm saying that all explanations for existence are fantastically non-logical and therefore equally logically invalid; this means an ontological explanation including God is no less rational than one excluding God.
_________


S: In doing so you have proceeded to a conclusion which is suiting your personal needs. In that regard one becomes just another sect.

H: Probably we all come to conclusions that suit our needs. An atheist has a need for a rational explanation but given that searching for something both rational and complete in an obviously inexplicable context is irrational. Every explanation is enveloped in the irrational context of inexplicable origin and end or an equally inexplicable eternality.

_________


S: Then I do not see your point why an inborn perfect understanding would make life automatic like bacteria as you put it, and intelligence and free will - (the latter which we don’t actually have) - irrelevant. Isn’t it an extremely limited understanding that makes bacteria automatic that way? With more understanding, why then would perfect understanding have you living like bacteria?

H: The bacterium's understanding is God-given and perfect. It must be perfect because if it included imperfections it would have to exist and we all know a bacterium's understanding is non-existent. (just kidding )

However, like the bacterium our understanding is appropriate to our nature and limitations but unlike the bacterium our understanding exists and includes imperfections. If God wanted to grant us perfect understanding God would have to adjust our limitations to the point that we would no longer be what we were. If we were adjusted in this way we would no longer be "us"; we would become "them". Thus it's impossible for "us" to have perfect understanding.

In any case, the being that does have perfect understanding would understand every thing including itself. This perfect understanding of itself would include a perfect understanding of its own needs and would make choices based on this perfect understanding unavoidable and automatic. Choices re the world would also be automatic since the one most correct course of action would always be obvious. Thus, the being with perfect understanding would exist like an automaton following the one and only course its perfect understanding indicated was appropriate in a manner indistiguishable from determinism.

Sorry, that's all I have time for tonight.