Random God Rant

Thats the difference between us, and I used to look at nature and not see God, but yet wonder about him. Now I look at nature, and I see all of creation screaming out his name.I also have the SETI@home screen saver.

While I wouldn't describe God's creation in that mannor, tell what is the relavent difference between being created by the Almighty to be his buddy, and just popping on to the scene by chance? either way we could be considered useless. One giant hiccup from the Sun and it would all be over.

I suppose even God cannot make 2+2=5.ed: typoThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-14-2005 12:45 PM

The difference is that in the God scenario, there is intention of an omnipotent being. The omnipotent being, presumably, made a deliberate choice to create what it created and this includes the capacity for suffering. An omnipotent, having no limitations to what it can do, is therefore responsible for what it has created. If there is a God, I will give it all credit for the good things, but I will also hold it responsible for all the bad things. I will not take responsibility because my ancestors apparently ate some foribdden fruit (why was it even there?).If we arrived by chance, then that means that the universe was not designed for us and, for that matter, nor was the Earth. And then one can expect and understand why so much of the Universe is uninhabitable. And then one can really, really understand WHY we could all be wiped out by an asteroid or a meteor or a hiccup from the sun at anytime. (My answer to the why question is I don't know, that's the way it is. God's answer to the Why question seems to be "...oh, I have my reasons..." which is unacceptable to me from an omnipotent that allegedly created me to be its buddy.)I agree that both beliefs could lead to the feeling that it's all useless.This message has been edited by docpotato, 09-14-2005 01:10 PM

I wish I would have been the one there that you are talking about. I'd give you plenty of second thoughts. I have seen the same shows and am very thankful that my own children do not suffer from this condiction. One thing that I did notice about the whole situation is that the amount of pure absolute tangible love that these children experienced from their parents and close others was in quantities rarely found in families where the children are physically healthy.In other words, the physical scourge that this condiction inflicts is unquestionable. But possibly, and I say that as my own sumation and not as a dogmatic self appointed spokes person for God, the Creator's intent was to use these children and their parents as vessels of light to convict millions of other parents of the neglect and lack of pure tangible love that physically healthy children require also.Just one story of one child who's life was cut down from this can have far more impact on society's view of the importance of their own children than 1000 stories of average families on the west coast with healty kids playing soccer while the dad sits in the stands on the cell phone conducting bussiness transactions.

That seems like a pretty paltry task for a God who has allegedly created the universe and raised the dead. God can ordain the laws of physics but can't tweak the rules of mathematics or at least redefine the symbol we use to represent 4?

I don't know if the laws of physics could be changed because I don't know if they are logically necessary or not; but I do know that if they are logically necessary they cannot be changed even by God."Redefining the symbol" is not what I was referring to. I meant the logical concept, no matter what symbol one uses.2+2=4 anytime, anyplace, anywhere.

This is interesting to me. Would you posit that logic existed prior to the universe? Or that God is beholden to logic in some way? Do you think that God could have created a universe in which logic was different or where 2+2 DID equal 5?

This is one of the problems in the very concept of "God." I don't think there's any way out of this paradox except by stating (lamely) that God IS Logic. It's lame, because if God is Logic, then how could He be a being?We could come up with various "limits of Omnipotence." For example, God cannot change history.

I don't disagree with anything you say here.I would argue that limited omnipotence is the negation of omnipotence. My main stance here is that a truly omnipotent God could choose to create a world in which people could freely love it with no suffering whatsoever. I also believe that a truly loving, omnipotent God would have no need for the concept of punishment and any analogies to human child-rearing have no place in the argument since humans are clearly not omnipotent.

This could be discussed in the "myths" thread, but consider that humans were not just given the knowledge to be "evil"...selfish, prideful, warmongering survivalists..along with all creation..we also gained something known as the knowledge of good. I suppose that God foreknew that this would occur..it is not as if He scratched his alminghty noggin and asked Himself "NOW what do I do with these pesky humans?" The issue of the myth/parable is that humanity had the desire and the capability of playing creator/designer and living a life without God.Over thousands of years, our brilliant little noggins have done many clever things, but our base emotional attitudes are as messed up as ever. Or...both could be positive.
In the God belief, it irks some people (probably you) that we humans have to defer our right to independant logic and decision if we are ever to get anywhere. The mistake is that we did not imagine God and create His attributes...we merely misinterpret what His attributes are.In the cold universe belief, we actually have a shot at being the number one badass civilization in the universe...Winning the lottery has much better odds, however! Why believe in chance?

But in there lies a bit of truth.
In your line of thinking, we are individuals, not a race. But the evidence is clear, we are a race, and what we do to ourselves, we do to the race. What's that theory of a butterfly on the other side of the earth causing earthquakes on this side?
Is God really responsible to what we do to ourselves, and is it so bad that we don't want to exist anymore?The general consensus is that life is ok enough that we don't want to kill oursleves. So "if" God created all this, then it ain't so bad. And if we come to terms with him, and realize that we are responsible for our own actions, and what we do represents all of humankind, then your relatioship with him improves greatly.This is what I mean when I said earlier in the thread that there is no integrety anymore, all there are, are people who point fingers and sue each other.It can't be my fault that I am alive, so why should I take the blame for anything?

Is God really responsible to what we do to ourselvesBy your logic - if I am accountable for the sins of Adam and eve - then the buck must stop with God as he created them and was responsible for creating them and then placing them in a garden with the weapon of their downfall.If it's not God's fault and it's due to their choices - then how come we are meant to suffer for their choices?What an evil God you christians have!This message has been edited by CK, 14-Sep-2005 03:25 PM

Hmm. I don't recall saying anything that could lead you to that conclusion. Perhaps it would be best if I told you that I think of humanity as both individuals AND a race. And that I believe that the actions of our ancestors have a lot to do with where we find ourselves. However, I don't believe in putting a bank robber's son in jail because his parent was a bank robber. Do you? Ain't so bad is a lower standard than I like to hold my omnipotent deities to.