Why a god who notices humanity can’t exist

[DifferentDrummr]

For the purposes of this argument, I’m going to use the Abrahamic God as an example, because so many people have claimed that he takes a personal and immediate interest in what humans are doing.

So let’s assume for the moment that he does.

God has given you intellect, senses, and the ability to reason through problems. So it almost goes without saying that he expects you to use those gifts. And that you be honest enough with yourself not to deny what these gifts tell you about your world.

It follows that God, if he were interested enough that he wanted you to take a particular course of action over a different one, would convey a message to you. Most importantly, it would have to be a message that you could somehow authenticate, given that the world is so full of malicious third parties who falsely claim to be God’s representatives. In other words, how do you know that any given directive is coming from the “real” God? You would have to rely on your own intellect and judgment to prove it somehow.

Has there ever been a foolproof way to identify a legitimate message from God? No. Therefore the assumption that an interested god exists leads to a contradiction.

To clarify, this argument doesn’t proof the non-existence of the Abrahamic God or any other god. It just proves that if any such gods exist, they aren’t micromanaging us.

 

[akrunner88]

For the purposes of this argument, I’m going to use the Abrahamic God as an example, because so many people have claimed that he takes a personal and immediate interest in what humans are doing.

So let’s assume for the moment that he does.

God has given you intellect, senses, and the ability to reason through problems. So it almost goes without saying that he expects you to use those gifts. And that you be honest enough with yourself not to deny what these gifts tell you about your world.

It follows that God, if he were interested enough that he wanted you to take a particular course of action over a different one, would convey a message to you. Most importantly, it would have to be a message that you could somehow authenticate, given that the world is so full of malicious third parties who falsely claim to be God’s representatives. In other words, how do you know that any given directive is coming from the “real” God? You would have to rely on your own intellect and judgment to prove it somehow.

Has there ever been a foolproof way to identify a legitimate message from God? No. Therefore the assumption that an interested god exists leads to a contradiction.

To clarify, this argument doesn’t proof the non-existence of the Abrahamic God or any other god. It just proves that if any such gods exist, they aren’t micromanaging us.

If such a God does exists and encompasses the same empathy he supposedly bestows on the rest of us, it would be irrational for him to send me to hell for not believing in him given my upbringing (atheist) and the contradictory nature of science vs. the holy scripts.

 

[humbolt]

Why do people here keep asking for physical proof of spiritual events?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

If such a God does exists and encompasses the same empathy he supposedly bestows on the rest of us, it would be irrational for him to send me to hell for not believing in him given my upbringing (atheist) and the contradictory nature of science vs. the holy scripts.

That's my point: if there's a god, it obviously doesn't give a flying fudge what humans do.

 

[akrunner88]

Why do people here keep asking for physical proof of spiritual events?

Because some of us have higher burden of proof thresholds and that just doesn't cut it for us.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Perhaps one mistake we are making is looking at God within the confines of human intellect and emotion, if you can divorce that then you can explain that very little of what God does would match our exceptions or standards for benevolence, or interest, or active participation.

 

[WCH]

That's my point: if there's a god, it obviously doesn't give a flying fudge what humans do.

He gave us free will.

However, in Matt. 21:22

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

 

[WCH]

Why do people here keep asking for physical proof of spiritual events?

Seems a logical mind blocks a spiritual heart.

 

[akrunner88]

Perhaps one mistake we are making is looking at God within the confines of human intellect and emotion, if you can divorce that then you can explain that very little of what God does would match our exceptions or standards for benevolence, or interest, or active participation.

If you define God within the confines of the Holy Scriptures, you have no choice but to.

 

[OrphanSlug]

If you define God within the confines of the Holy Scriptures, you have no choice but to.

Because it was written by man, even if claimed to be inspired by God.

 

[akrunner88]

Because it was written by man, even if claimed to be inspired by God.

And that's my whole issue with the entire thing in a nut shell.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Seems a logical mind blocks a spiritual heart.

Not necessarily. Plenty of spiritually minded people don't believe in the Abrahamic god.

 

[WCH]

Not necessarily. Plenty of spiritually minded people don't believe in the Abrahamic god.

That's why I left it at Spiritual heart. [soul]



"We must walk by faith and not by sight."

2 Cor. 5:7

 

[Nilly]

For the purposes of this argument, I’m going to use the Abrahamic God as an example, because so many people have claimed that he takes a personal and immediate interest in what humans are doing.

So let’s assume for the moment that he does.

God has given you intellect, senses, and the ability to reason through problems. So it almost goes without saying that he expects you to use those gifts. And that you be honest enough with yourself not to deny what these gifts tell you about your world.

It follows that God, if he were interested enough that he wanted you to take a particular course of action over a different one, would convey a message to you. Most importantly, it would have to be a message that you could somehow authenticate, given that the world is so full of malicious third parties who falsely claim to be God’s representatives. In other words, how do you know that any given directive is coming from the “real” God? You would have to rely on your own intellect and judgment to prove it somehow.

Has there ever been a foolproof way to identify a legitimate message from God? No. Therefore the assumption that an interested god exists leads to a contradiction.

To clarify, this argument doesn’t proof the non-existence of the Abrahamic God or any other god. It just proves that if any such gods exist, they aren’t micromanaging us.

That's why it's called faith.

No problem with faith, if people want to have it, fine. It's when people believe that their faith supersedes someone else's opinion that there's an issue.

 

[OrphanSlug]

And that's my whole issue with the entire thing in a nut shell.

Probably an issue for many people, the point is still the same.

At the time the text was written there is zero comparison of their social climate, makeup, education levels, basic knowledge of the world, economics, health, and a dozen other factors when compared to today. Whatever divine inspiration was given, the text greatly reflects a series of faults. This is most pronounced in the text for the OT compared to the NT, but all along the way we risk a big mistake in the assumption that God's activities start and end within human intellect and emotional confines.

Here is the flip side to that thinking, that a God does operate within those human and emotional confines. Not only is he rather absentee in many of our lives as the OP suggests, it would make the majority of God's actions recorded in the OT as homicidal, cruel, ripe with jealousy and anger and rage, and overall somewhere between a psychopath and a sociopath.

But we do not do that, we do not accept that God's actions are stuck within the confines of human understanding, or intellect, or emotion. Therefor it would be an act of futility to try to explain why God may or may not take an active role in someone's life giving them instruction or message that cannot be confused as being something else.

...

Note - Understand I am an agnostic, and do not have a horse in this race. But what I am trying to do is establish that we are making a mistake suggesting when God should and should not be acting within human confines or by methods that we suggest means benevolence and involvement. There is no real way to resolve this conversation, other than use it to make a conclusion that none of us can prove. Besides faith does not work that way anyway, never has and never will.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

That's why it's called faith.

No problem with faith, if people want to have it, fine. It's when people believe that their faith supersedes someone else's opinion that there's an issue.

Not really:

Imagine there was an authentic, verifiable message from God saying, "Do X but not Y. I can't give you a logical explanation, so you'll just have to trust me." If you followed the directive, that would be faith.

On the other hand, if you assume some "message" is genuine when you have no way of knowing it's from God in the first place, that's not faith. It's wishful thinking.

 

[Nilly]

Not really:

Imagine there was an authentic, verifiable message from God saying, "Do X but not Y. I can't give you a logical explanation, so you'll just have to trust me." If you followed the directive, that would be faith.

On the other hand, if you assume some "message" is genuine when you have no way of knowing it's from God in the first place, that's not faith. It's wishful thinking.

I don't really see the difference between the two statements. Let me rephrase the 2nd in the mould of the first:

Imagine there was an authentic, verifiable way of receiving a message (i.e. speech/language) and someone used it to say "God exists. I can't give you a logical explanation, just trust me." If you followed that directive. That would be faith.

Both of your statements are simply believing in something without evidence. i.e. Faith.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Has there ever been a foolproof way to identify a legitimate message from God? No. Therefore the assumption that an interested god exists leads to a contradiction.

How do you propose that a legitimate god differentiate himself from illegitimate gods or spirits? If you cannot think of a solution, have you considered that the reason you cannot is the same reason that the gods cannot-- that the problem itself is impossible, or even that the difference between a "legitimate" god and an "illegitimate" one is a matter of perspective?

 

[X Factor]

That's why it's called faith.

No problem with faith, if people want to have it, fine. It's when people believe that their faith supersedes someone else's opinion that there's an issue.

How about someone believing their lack of belief should supersede someone else's faith. In other words, why do so many of you care if others believe or not?

 

[humbolt]

Because some of us have higher burden of proof thresholds and that just doesn't cut it for us.

Do tell. Do you love your mother?

 

[WCH]

Not really:

Imagine there was an authentic, verifiable message from God saying, "Do X but not Y. I can't give you a logical explanation, so you'll just have to trust me." If you followed the directive, that would be faith.

On the other hand, if you assume some "message" is genuine when you have no way of knowing it's from God in the first place, that's not faith. It's wishful thinking.

Read the word [in the Bible] and have faith. You might be surprised what you learn.

 

[Nilly]

How about someone believing their lack of belief should supersede someone else's faith. In other words, why do so many of you care if others believe or not?

Because those who do hold belief have historically, and continue today, to step on the toes of everyone in society.

I don't care if you personally believe something. I do care if your personal beliefs impacts other people. I care if it impacts me, my family, my community, my country or even people I don't know. Hell, I care if it impacts your own children.

Someones belief in god should hold no more sway outside of their own head than my belief that green is the coolest colour. They're both baseless opinions and should be treated thusly. Note, that doesn't mean that you can't hold such an opinion. Green is my favourite colour, afterall.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

How do you propose that a legitimate god differentiate himself from illegitimate gods or spirits? If you cannot think of a solution, have you considered that the reason you cannot is the same reason that the gods cannot-- that the problem itself is impossible, or even that the difference between a "legitimate" god and an "illegitimate" one is a matter of perspective?

The only possible way would be to rely on the assumption that there is only one entity with powers that resemble the god's. Which is perhaps the philosophical problem that polytheism ran into, but I'm just speculating on that one.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Read the word [in the Bible] and have faith. You might be surprised what you learn.

I read far more of the Bible than I ever cared to when I was attending parochial schools. It has some interesting narratives, but nothing that surprises me anymore.

 

[humbolt]

How about someone believing their lack of belief should supersede someone else's faith. In other words, why do so many of you care if others believe or not?

In fact, I don't care whether others believe or not. I also have no idea why so many who don't believe question those who do. The general consensus expressed here among most atheists is that such believers are idiots. Given that, I also wonder why so many self-proclaimed superior beings choose to spend time discussing anything with idiots.