God doesn't makes sense

connermt · Sep 5, 2010

The christian god and how it's described in popular culture makes no sense to me.
Let's look at some of the items that don't make sense:
1) it's said that only good things come from god, and at the same time, it's said god is the creator of everything. If only good things come from god, then god isn't all powerful being as it lacks the ability to create bad/evil things. If it allows bad/evil things to be created, this means it either can't stop them from being created (not all powerful) or doesn't want to (is that something really perfect and worth worship?) If god is the creator of everything, then he had to create the bad/evil things too. This means he had to create "bad/evil/sin". The story of satan says god created the angels to worship him, lucifer (an angel) rebelled against him. Now then, this would mean that god created an angel whose purpose was to rebel against him, or he made a mistake with lucifer (and the roughly 1/3 of the other angels). Either way, not perfection.
2) it's said god is perfect, and at the same time, god isn't bad/evil. Perfection means having without fault, satisfying all requirements. By definition of the word, god would have to be both good and evil and everything in between. if god seperated evil from himself, then he ceases to be perfect. If god never "had" evil, it was never perfect.
3) god is said to create a perfect environment in which Adam and Eve was introduced. Yet, because Adam and Eve sinned, it ceased being perfect. Why was the devil allowed to enter Perfection Land and tempt two (as close to perfect as possible without being gods) beings created from a perfect being to begin with if the creation was perfect?
4) why did god allow the temtation and fall of man, while knowing it would happen? If he didn't know, he wouldn't be all knowing. And to create something knowing it will fail, isn't exactly what one would call a perfect and all loving creator.
5) why did god seems so upset and surprised at the fall of man? He obviously had to know what the outcome would be, or he's not all knowing.
6) why would god tempt Adam and Eve be telling them not to eat from the tree, knowing they would?
7) while we're at it, why put the tree there in the first place?
8) why would such a loving god, need sacrifices to appease it? They are beyond barbaric
9) god is said to have created all things, yet he needed flawed humans (for which he is responsible for) to write his words. It's harder to write a book than it is to create everything that exists?
10) so many people claim to worship the same god, but can't agree on certain beliefs? If god is perfect and truly speaking to the people, their opinion of a person/situation/belief be the same. This concept included differnt faiths, but also same individuals within the same church.
11) the OT god seems to be a murder-happy kill-joy, while the NT god is said to be so loving and concerned about his creation - the same creation that he had to know the outcome of because of his actions.

One would think, after thousand of years, people would have perfected the christian god myth. Yet it's not, and people continue to believe in it.

obtuseobserver · Sep 5, 2010

Why do you waste so much time on a concept you have rejected?

I don't like potato salad. As such, I don't waste any one's time telling them why I don't like it nor why I think other people are foolish for liking it.

TortoiseDream · Sep 5, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Why do you waste so much time on a concept you have rejected?

I don't like potato salad. As such, I don't waste any one's time telling them why I don't like it nor why I think other people are foolish for liking it.

Because belief in God, to a much larger degree, has a far reaching and society-shaping web of consequences that permeate all of western civilization.

obtuseobserver · Sep 6, 2010

It (belief in God) has far reaching impact on every civilization. There is no "atheist" civilization, only atheists.

However, in the west to a large degree it is segregated from public life. So we're back to, "why bother?"

Lastly, I think you fail to give potato salad it's due by not recognizing it's far reaching impact worldwide.

TortoiseDream · Sep 6, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
It (belief in God) has far reaching impact on every civilization. There is no "atheist" civilization, only atheists.

However, in the west to a large degree it is segregated from public life. So we're back to, "why bother?"

Lastly, I think you fail to give potato salad it's due by not recognizing it's far reaching impact worldwide.

I probably should have added that some atheists may see widespread belief in God as being a major source of societies problems. If that's the case, it should be clear why some would publicly denounce it.

obtuseobserver · Sep 6, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
I probably should have added that some atheists may see widespread belief in God as being a major source of societies problems. If that's the case, it should be clear why some would publicly denounce it.

Which is a lot easier to do than listing a bunch of reasons why God doesn't make sense to that person.

Believe or don't. I could care less. If some one then gives reasons for not believing are they obligated to change that to believing if their challenges are answered with reasonable answers?

So much easier to say, "I don't believe in God" and leave it at that.

But, we are still back to, "why bother" the unsolicited declaration accomplishes nothing.

TortoiseDream · Sep 6, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Which is a lot easier to do than listing a bunch of reasons why God doesn't make sense to that person.

Believe or don't. I could care less. If some one then gives reasons for not believing are they obligated to change that to believing if their challenges are answered with reasonable answers?

So much easier to say, "I don't believe in God" and leave it at that.

But, we are still back to, "why bother" the unsolicited declaration accomplishes nothing.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Here's my point in brief:

Atheist sees the world has problems; atheist sees the problems tied to widespread belief in God; atheist then tries to convince people that God doesn't exist, in an effort to solve these problems. I think it's pretty clear.

obtuseobserver · Sep 6, 2010

TortoiseDream said:
I don't understand what you're talking about.

When one enumerates reasons for a belief or non belief and is then faced with a reasonable rebuttal of those reasons the basis for belief or non belief is eliminated.

How much easier to simply declare the belief or non-belief without offering reasons that are subject to rebuttal.

TortoiseDream said:
Atheist sees the world has problems; atheist sees the problems tied to widespread belief in God; atheist then tries to convince people that God doesn't exist, in an effort to solve these problems. I think it's pretty clear.

It was clear. What I was pointing out is that a reasoned position is subject to being disproved while simply declaring a choice is not.

The atheist made his job more difficult by offering the believer reasons for the non-belief that are now subject to debate and rebuttal.

For example...

Premise: I don't like potato salad because of all the garden slugs in it.

Rebuttal: There are no garden slugs in potato salad

Premise Offeror: oh-oh

If the Premise was "I don't like potato salad" I'm declaring a choice not a reasoned position on a subject that is open to being refuted

connermt · Sep 7, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Why do you waste so much time on a concept you have rejected?

I don't like potato salad. As such, I don't waste any one's time telling them why I don't like it nor why I think other people are foolish for liking it.

I would ask you why you spend so much time defending something that you find to be true?

But, I'll answer your question (you know, just for fun):
One reason is because many religious people are forcing their belief in god over everyone (legally, within education, etc).

The other reason is that more people need to think about their belief system and, hopefully, realize it for what it is: a self serving means to feel good about themselves.

connermt · Sep 7, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Believe or don't. I could care less.

I call BS on that statement. If that's true, you wouldn't feel the need to comment on something such as this thread.

So much easier to say, "I don't believe in God" and leave it at that.

The same can be said about many believers. Why can't they say "I believe in God" and leave it at that? If believer say non-believers should say that, it stands to reason that the same rule should hold true to believers.
Why do believers find it necessary to try to put god back into the lives of people who couldn't care less about it? That's a rhetorical question, of course. But it does have its own point.

obtuseobserver · Sep 7, 2010

connermt said:
I would ask you why you spend so much time defending something that you find to be true?

I didn't defend. I asked you a question.

connermt said:
I call BS on that statement. If that's true, you wouldn't feel the need to comment on something such as this thread.

I think you misunderstood what I said I don't care about. I don't care if you believe or not.

What you'd want to show in order to "call BS" would be efforts I've made get you to believe. I've made none. Why? I don't care if you believe or not.

connermt said:
But, I'll answer your question (you know, just for fun):
One reason is because many religious people are forcing their belief in god over everyone (legally, within education, etc).

For example? Not some vapid generalization but a speciofic example of you being forced to believe in God (and which version of God while you're at it) with what law, education, etc

connermt said:
The other reason is that more people need to think about their belief system and, hopefully, realize it for what it is: a self serving means to feel good about themselves.

Well, the issues you raise are awfully pedestrian. I think if you wish to challenge people of faith you'll need to elevate your game quite a bit.

Check out the Documentary Hypothesis, the oral vs written traditions etc.

connermt said:
The same can be said about many believers. Why can't they say "I believe in God" and leave it at that?

Not sure whom you're speaking to. I believe in God and I have been clear about that. I haven't offered comment one abnout why I believe nor why I think you should or should not believe. So, on this point I think you've got what you're asking for.

connermt said:
Why do believers find it necessary to try to put god back into the lives of people who couldn't care less about it? That's a rhetorical question, of course. But it does have its own point.

Actually you'll need to explain, or rather, give an example because I have no clue what you're getting at.

Who is trying to put God in your life? How? Ever try ignoring them? (I had some %^)*(&& Seventh Day Adventists come to my door once.... I just started asking them questions they couldn't answer and they left... maybe try that? Now, I did that for fun. You might try the more challenging route and not answer the door, or close it once you find out they're dickheads?)

connermt · Sep 13, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
I didn't defend. I asked you a question.

And I answered it

I think you misunderstood what I said I don't care about. I don't care if you believe or not. What you'd want to show in order to "call BS" would be efforts I've made get you to believe. I've made none. Why? I don't care if you believe or not.

A lot of talk and it's still BS. :giggle:

For example?

Examples given. If you don't want to accept them as viable examples, that's your problem.

Well, the issues you raise are awfully pedestrian.

And your lack of responses show your inability to respond with reasonable thought (other than your use of the word pedestrian - again).

I think if you wish to challenge people of faith you'll need to elevate your game quite a bit.

When people get defensive and make assumptions (such as thinking I need to challenge anyone) that shows the need to prove their POV as right in light of little to no evidence. Basically, fear causing people to jump to grand assumptions when it's not necessary (or relevant).

Not sure whom you're speaking to.

A general statement - not to anyone in particular.

Actually you'll need to explain, or rather, give an example because I have no clue what you're getting at.

Another general statement. This may not apply to you. If not, then you, of course, wouldn't understand.

Who is trying to put God in your life? How? Ever try ignoring them?

For example: some groups who believe that life begins at conception because the bible says and wanting to make abortion illegal, that gay people should have no legal rights because they are 'sinning', groups wanting to put ID into science when it has no scientific merit, etc.
If the church (general term here) wants to teach these things in their church, that's fine. But when they start exercising these teachings outside the church (and thus, out of scope), that's where many (including myself) have a problem with it.

And still, the concept of the christian god make zero sense.

obtuseobserver · Sep 13, 2010

continuing to refer me back to previous examples of you not answering questions isn't any more constructive than the first examples of you not answering.

connermt said:
For example: some groups who believe that life begins at conception because the bible says and wanting to make abortion illegal,

The bible as far as I know doesn't discuss the moment at which life begins. I could be wrong but unless you can find me chapter and verse I'm thinking it isn't there.

Further, conception being the beginning of life is a matter of science not religion.

This claim you've asserted is actually a good example of a poorly thought out charge that people of faith are trying to put God into your life.

Abortion laws address the act of terminating a pregnancy they have nothing to do with asking you to believe in God or not to say nothing of actually compelling.

connermt said:
that gay people should have no legal rights because they are 'sinning',

Well, this is another charge that doesn't carry any weight. Certainly opinions regarding homosexuality run the gamut but no people of faith that I know, and I know a large number, think what you asserted.

Certainly you can find assholes who may at least in part agree with your claim but I can find people who think the world is flat. As a general rule we don't pay much attention to people like that.

Add to this the notion that such a severe perspective on Gay Rights is legally enforcfeable NO WHERE in the US and we have another bankrupt charge that you are having God forced upon you.

connermt said:
groups wanting to put ID into science when it has no scientific merit, etc.

It actually has some scientific merit. I reject it but there are statiticians and other scientists who have posited that given rates of mutation the age of the earth is insufficient for those rates to have resulted in our current biodiversity. Some say that this makes design more likely than random chance. Personally I think that so much order procedes from chaos to be a bigger stretch than the converse but what I think the statisticians have done is show us that we must look to other causes for biodiversity than just random genetic mutation... whatever cause(s) that may be.

But, once again, teaching the concept of ID is not compelling you to believe in God. Hell, when I was in school we were taught all kinds of theories for the origin of life and the diversification of life.

connermt said:
If the church (general term here) wants to teach these things in their church, that's fine. But when they start exercising these teachings outside the church (and thus, out of scope), that's where many (including myself) have a problem with it.

OK. But they're not compelling you to believe in ID much less God.

connermt said:
And still, the concept of the christian god make zero sense.

OK. As I repeatedly have said. It is a choice. Believe or don't. But demanding that God make sense to you will result in disappointment.

In any event, all of your charges of having God "forced" on you are a pile of cliches that don't hold up well to reality. They sound like the pissing and moaning of college freshmen cranky that their parents made them go to church when they were home on break and failing to notice the irony that such complaints require us to accept that you are unable to think well enough for yourself and that you cannot fend off those Christians and their evil ideas... you must at last accept them. Resistence is futile!! Oh.. And that is no fair... no fair.

AK_ID · Sep 14, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
I don't like potato salad. As such, I don't waste any one's time telling them why I don't like it nor why I think other people are foolish for liking it.

You obviously have never eaten potato salad with smoked salmon or oysters mixed in, barrister (or even bacon, but don't tell my rabbi). That would cure you of your dislike, especially when washed down with a bit of rye.

As to the OP, I'm not sure why one would spend so much effort trying to discount other folks' beliefs, a practice which is in effect a form of reverse proselytizing. It's not religion that has caused problems in history, but rather the effort to convert others to your beliefs -- the same can be said of anti-religious factions.

Fact is, Occidental religions based upon the Torah have provided western civilization with the mores that separate us from animals. And despite the OP reference to the OT being a violent collection of documents, Jews don't try to convert anyone by force or otherwise, and in fact try very neatly to discourage conversions.

obtuseobserver · Sep 14, 2010

AK_ID said:
You obviously have never eaten potato salad with smoked salmon or oysters mixed in, barrister (or even bacon, but don't tell my rabbi). That would cure you of your dislike, especially when washed down with a bit of rye.

As to the OP, I'm not sure why one would spend so much effort trying to discount other folks' beliefs, a practice which is in effect a form of reverse proselytizing. It's not religion that has caused problems in history, but rather the effort to convert others to your beliefs -- the same can be said of anti-religious factions.

Fact is, Occidental religions based upon the Torah have provided western civilization with the mores that separate us from animals. And despite the OP reference to the OT being a violent collection of documents, Jews don't try to convert anyone by force or otherwise, and in fact try very neatly to discourage conversions.

Absolutely true. The impact of Abrahmic Monotheism (mostly excluding Islam) has been the driving and dominant force in the west for several thousands of years. It permeates our culture in a number of ways no other cultural influce can compete with.

from an earlier thread regarding culturel indfluences on the West where Rome was asserted to have had the greatest impact.....

obtuseobserver said:
Rome influenced a great many things but the single largest cultural factor of western civilization is the adoption of Abrahamic Monotheism.

Think of the constitution's acknowledgement of natural law.

Think of the Supreme Court building in DC... think of all the statues of Moses law giver... you'll find precious few of any Romans. Their administrative methods... those we absorbed with great affinity. The Romans were excellent bureaucrats and administrators. They left wonderful records. They left wonderful methods of analysis etc etc etc.... but how many cathedral were built to celebrate that? How many wars fought over differing opinions of interpretation of roman legal standards? blah blah blah

David said:
Rome was Christian for 2,000 years, so that point kind of falls flat on it's face.

obtuseobserver said:
Christianity is only 2000 years old.

The latest date you can claim a roman empire would be 1453 when Constantinople finally fell.

so, let's call it 1100 years (we'll date it from 313 when Constantine made it legal to be a Christian). That's 1100 years of Abrahamic Monotheism dominating the western world. When you consider that the West was, by and large Christian in 1453 it further supports my point...

AK_ID · Sep 14, 2010

Speaking of Abrahamic monotheism, besides relieving y'all of the need to worship every rock on a high hill, we gave you fish balls (gefilte, for the uninitiated). You're very welcome.

And actually, Hebraic monotheism has stood unwavering for about as long as has the written word, and has survived a number of empires. Every surviving enforced rule of law in the western world from Rome and Greece is descended from Mosaic law. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

obtuseobserver · Sep 14, 2010

You can keep the fish....

But thank you for the kugel

and to correct your error.... I agree with all of the comments on law, survivibility, etc. However, that tradition and influence probably predates written language. The Noachide tradition almost certainly. IMO it is the most fascinating success story in human existence. Kinda weird that they've been so successful and they have done so the whole while accepting that same God that makes no sense. Clearly you cats are the beneficiaries of dumb blind luck in spite of yourselves.

AK_ID · Sep 14, 2010

Such things happen when you're chosen. So do pogroms, though.

You are right regarding oral tradition predating written by a very large number of years.

Not that this is in any way related to the topic at hand, but a distant cousin (cute little gal who's in the IDF), wrote me a few weeks ago, bragging about her nephew (another, distanter cousin). One of her comments, translated, was, "Israel is the only nation in the world where a four-year-old can dig up a piece of stone in the park and understand what someone scratched on it it 3,000 years ago." Continuity is worth something, I reckon.

obtuseobserver · Sep 14, 2010

Well, truth be told I think if I dug up a 10,000 year old statue like the Venus of Willendorf I could figure out what it means

But, doofus style pedantary aside your cousin is spot on

One last point, that they didn't write it down doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't have done so. To draw a parallel from some people who are a kind of ancient cousin of mine, Snorri wrote the Prose Edda around 1200. Its basically Bullfinches Mythology for Icelanders. Older Icelanders could write - they just didn't need to write those stories down because everyone knew them. As their society had more contact with Christians they started losing those stories. Snorri wrote them down so people wouldn't forget. I had read one theory that said the writtenm tradition became necessary as the people grew in numbers and became parts of several groups eventually constituting the tribes.

AK_ID · Sep 15, 2010

I never read Sturluson's Prose Edda, but did the Heimskringla years ago at the urging of my very Norse/Germanic grandfather (the Jewish side and Germanic side of the family may explain the divorce rate). As I recall, there was a lot of beheading and berserking involved -- in Heimskringla, not in my family.

God doesn't makes sense

Similar threads