Because no one can definitively prove whether God exists, I think it's time we take things back to the old school. Experiment: Man kind joins together as a whole and puts God on trial. That is to say, if everyone had the balls to really put God on the spot and check to see whether he exists, we might be able to push past blind faith into, oh I don't know, a Q&A session for all of our burning questions, like: If God is perfect, how can he be jealous, angry or vengeful? And why would he need to perform an experiment he obviously already knows the outcome to? And why create the angel Lucifer (and thus, evil), knowing he would turn against him? I'm not saying God's logic has to be the same as ours, but then again, I don't see why not. I think it's worth a shot to have the big man upstairs make an appearance and end all the pointless wars and arguments about who's right and who's wrong. What do you think?
Maybe it's true that man doesn't need God to be kind, or man doesn't need satan to be evil. But I'm happy with what I'm today, believe in God. Good luck with your quest.
Thanks. Ideally, God would exist because then I could live in eternal bliss ... but unfortunately, my instincts tell me that's not likely.
What if the jealous, angry and vengeful portrayals are misportrayals? Maybe god was more afraid of laxity than evil. Sloth is a bigger enemy than evil, so maybe he created evil to keep everyone on their toes and to make people understand the value of being good and living a good life? What if god never created lucifer, but is merely credited with doing so? What if there is another more powerful "real" god above the portrayed [And misportrayed] god? My point is, if you doubt religion and the existence of god, why do you have to assume what the religious people claim as true. By disproving the theories of the religious persons, you only prove that the religious have no clue what they are talking about or are saying the wrong things. You don't really disprove the existence of god, you only disprove the existence of the god portrayed by the religious persons you are concerned with. There is still the possibility of a god existing [Albeit not affiliated with any religion] who hasn't been portrayed, explained or understood by any/most people. [Hope somebody understands the ideas i'm putting forth, sometimes ideas are so hard to express in words ]
Well, I'd say .. where's the evidence for it? The religions today do have religious texts, albeit man-made and convoluted. Despite these points, there's still some "evidence." Quite the contrary - I assume that what religious people claim is most likely false because I doubt the existence of god. I get it and it makes sense to a point but the reason you'd go to religions vs anywhere else is because each monotheistic religion claims to have some sort of intimate knowledge of God's attributes and the like. It seems like the logical place to start looking. Don't get me wrong, I think they're all different roads to the same answer but the logic is simple: if your God contradicts itself, it isn't perfect and therefore, can't be the god of a religion that demands ultimate perfection. Once you've established that, you've removed religion from the equation. Then the question becomes, simply -- does God exist? This is why I think it'd be an interesting experiment for man if he were to actually call God's bluff, so to speak. Sure, you risk total elimination but the benefit outweighs the risk.
In my mind, the statement "The "Insert religion here" god doesn't exist" is completely different from "Absolutely no god exists". The first is easier and maybe truer. While one can disprove the existence of traditional gods, it may be harder to disprove the existence of an unknown and/or undescribed/misdescribed being who exerts a large influence on the world. What if there is an imperfect god? [Unaffilated with any religion or maybe misunderstood by all religions]. How do you disprove the existence of a god, who hasn't been explained or understood by any religion or for that matter any man?
Right, but until you remove the [insert religion here] gods from the equation, they're going to keep peaking their heads into the search. You're absolutely right. There's no way to disprove the existence of something we have no way of knowing about but if you use simple logic, you can make a reasonable assumption. There very well could be. There could also be smurfs living inside the sun. The question isn't "what if," it's just "if." There is absolutely no way to completely disprove the existence of anything because we simply can't see everything there is, let alone understand it. That doesn't mean I can't make intelligent, logical assumptions based on logic and reasonable doubts.
Yes, certainly. The world evolves only when people question traditional assumptions and seek other answers. We don't need more blind sheep who simply accept what they are told. Logic however shouldn't close one's minds to possibilities [Remote though they may be].
Just write how would you have created world and laws of nature , humans ,etc if you were God , we can find problem with each and every sentence that you will write .
Exactly, because I'm a man. The same goes for any religious text.. great point: Anything man-made is inherently flawed.
If you're talking about the Greek pantheon, yeah, they get jealous (Hera), angry & vengeful (Ares, Athena, Poseidon, Zeus - hell, all of them), but they do know how to party - Dionysius is a blast. Read Job, and then realize God (1) gets bored; (2) is a sadistic prick, sometimes, in my mortal opinion. Lucifer, the "Shining One," was a favorite, who turned sour. Given Job, it's obvious God likes a game - nothing better than the dialectic, pure good, pure evil. I think that while I can enjoy the good theater that springs from the mind of man, who has forever yearned to to give peace to his ontological yearnings, when we forget it's all play, a fictional trifle, we run into trouble.
I was actually focusing on Yahweh because he seems to be the most popular God. Turning sour begs the question: how could perfection go sour? You could interpret the apparent reasoning for God's actions as stated in the bible a number of different ways but none of it is relevant if the premise is flawed. Batman needs the Joker, Superman needs Lex Luther, the Ninja Turtles need Shredder. It makes sense: if you lose the villain, the story is over because the hero wins. But what if there's no hero? After all, there's no real proof for one. We just have the written word and if you're smart, you wouldn't put your eggs in the basket of history being 100% accurate. History isn't written by the people that lose wars, after all.
Hi Scott, I should mention that I'm an atheist, who happens to be fascinated with mythology, in all its forms; as I said, "good theater." On Lucifer, I don't know that it was ever stated "The Shining One" was perfection - only the most exalted of angels. Given it is acknowledged it was his pride (a sin) that led to his fall, it seems to be at least implied he was "shining," but imperfect. On god, and winners: Bernadette Devlin's famous retort when asked what happened to the catholicism inherent to the Irish Troubles:
I'm not saying it's an absolute but what I am saying is, based on our language and our understanding of what and who God is, it would be a complete contradiction if God (although omnipotent) could be capable of creating something not good (ungood? bad? evil?). I completely acknowledge the fact that God's rules for these types of things could be completely separate. Hell, God created the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. But it doesn't make sense that a perfect circle would yield imperfections.
Pretty tetchy, to say the least. Which is why I'm a fan of the Greek pantheon. They're tetchy, and a host of other human foibles, but they don't get all holier-than-thou about it. Hell, it's widely known Zeus is a Lothario, but is terrified of Hera for her harridan's response to his assignations. Last time I talked with him over an amphora of honeyed wine, he blushed and told me that while he's a cad, he tries - and he's afraid of his wife, who can truly kick his ass. Don't know why she stays with him, actually. Hephaestus may be a toad of a guy, but he's loyal - Aphrodite should agree to an open thing with Zeus, and Hera and Hephaestus should hook up to be as tightassedly blissful as Dwight and Angela.