Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[TillICollapse]

Personally, I think the concept of a personal, interventionist entity that some might believe was a deity, makes some sense. However, I would remove many of the "omni" attributes typically associated with the concept.

 

[DiamondKut]

If God exists, then it is something to be shown ---not something to be demonstrated (by argument, reasoning). Any argument attempting to prove God will --of necessity-- have to include him as an existent entity, somewhere, somehow in its premises; otherwise, you can't prove it (it doesn't work).

However, it is clear that that which we call 'God' belongs rather to ourselves than 'to the world', so to speak; it is in our minds. For God is the attempt of seeing things through one and the same perspective; all things, past and present, concatenated with each other through this very same thought --feeling--, which is that which all things have in common, but which is none of those things.
.

 

[Deidre32]

I have trouble seeing any value in a system that postulates a creator who then will forever be undetectable. It sounds rather like the religious version of methadone. Something to replace the heroin of the Abrahamic and other faiths that claim a more hands on God.

What you don't know about why some people believe, is a lot.

 

[durangodawood]

For the sake of this poll, God refers to a.......

I'm more concerned about the definition of "makes sense".

Could mean: seems likely.
Or it could mean: its an intelligible concept, regardless of likelihood.

 

[Received]

I'm more concerned about the definition of "makes sense".

Could mean: seems likely.
Or it could mean: its an intelligible concept, regardless of likelihood.

I mean the latter.

 

[keith99]

What you don't know about why some people believe, is a lot.

Then explain what they believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. How much sense does God make to you? I'm talking about the idea of God as a concept and an entity, whether or not he exists. E.g., does God sound like madness, does his existence make a lot of sense, moderate sense but you still have a few questions?

If you answer, "it depends," then if you had to choose a definition that seemed most reasonable to you (i.e., one you would have if you were a theist), how much sense does this preferred conception of God make...?

It really depends on what you see god as....

As an atheist, I see god as a solution to a lot of human weaknesses. Fear of the unknown (the god of the gaps, or god as a solution to questions we don't have any answers for) fear of mortality (the god of the immortal soul who keeps you perpetually in existence) the fear of evil and worldly injustice (the god who punishes those who behave wrongly or rewards those who behave rightly) and others...if one looks at god as a concept that helps the fearful/superstitious/weak-willed carry on with their lives and deal with situations or aspects of reality which are difficult for them, god makes perfect sense in that context.

If however, we're just talking about an actual living entity that's all powerful and created everything....god makes little to no sense at all. I can't conceive of such a being that would be remotely interested in the worship of men....or their lives....or their decisions, etc. A lot of the choices god made concerning the nature of his creations is equally problematic.

So no...god makes no sense in the context you mean.

 

[quatona]

I mean the latter.

Interestingly, many theists never get tired of telling me how God doesn´t make sense (needn´t make sense, shouldn´t make sense): "God is beyond our comprehension, God´s logic is different than human logic,...".

 

[Received]

Interestingly, many theists never get tired of telling me how God doesn´t make sense (needn´t make sense, shouldn´t make sense): "God is beyond our comprehension, God´s logic is different than human logic,...".

Yeah, well, if God were totally beyond our comprehension, it wouldn't be possible to think about him, and it wouldn't even be possible to relate to him, as a relationship in this case (God being invisible and stuff) absolutely requires knowledge, a schema by which you interpret certain occurrences.

 

[Received]

It really depends on what you see god as....

As an atheist, I see god as a solution to a lot of human weaknesses. Fear of the unknown (the god of the gaps, or god as a solution to questions we don't have any answers for) fear of mortality (the god of the immortal soul who keeps you perpetually in existence) the fear of evil and worldly injustice (the god who punishes those who behave wrongly or rewards those who behave rightly) and others...if one looks at god as a concept that helps the fearful/superstitious/weak-willed carry on with their lives and deal with situations or aspects of reality which are difficult for them, god makes perfect sense in that context.

If however, we're just talking about an actual living entity that's all powerful and created everything....god makes little to no sense at all. I can't conceive of such a being that would be remotely interested in the worship of men....or their lives....or their decisions, etc. A lot of the choices god made concerning the nature of his creations is equally problematic.

So no...god makes no sense in the context you mean.

God doesn't make sense not in terms of understanding metaphysical ideas about him (all powerful, etc.), but in terms of how he'd want to hang out with us? I think in this case God can make sense to you, just not packaged in a certain religious ideology involving personal relatedness between God and man.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God doesn't make sense not in terms of understanding metaphysical ideas about him (all powerful, etc.), but in terms of how he'd want to hang out with us? I think in this case God can make sense to you, just not packaged in a certain religious ideology involving personal relatedness between God and man.

No...make no mistake, the metaphysical stuff doesn't make much sense either...but that's been discussed to death, hasn't it?

The idea that such a being could have wants or desires, let alone desire worship from something so far beneath it that we couldn't even compare ourselves to it, is laughably absurd.

How can you have wants or desires if you're "all powerful"? Explain how that works...because as far as I can imagine, any desires it has it could immediately fulfill. This is a very bland, empty, pointless existence...is it not? To put the desire of worship upon such a being makes no sense to me at all. A relationship? You're kidding right? Do you seek a relationship with the ants around your back porch? Imagine beings that were far far less than ants to you...and you still wouldn't be close to the comparison between you and this "god".

Do you love the microscopic dust mites that inhabit your ears? Could you "love" them in any meaningful sense? I don't see how such a being could love anything so far beneath it...again, it's an absurdity.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, well, if God were totally beyond our comprehension, it wouldn't be possible to think about him, and it wouldn't even be possible to relate to him, as a relationship in this case (God being invisible and stuff) absolutely requires knowledge, a schema by which you interpret certain occurrences.

Even though I think that we actually have relationships with our ideas of others, not with them, I have severe difficulties to form an idea of a God that at the same time makes sense to me and even only faintly resembles the God of Abrahamic monotheism.

Of course, if I could do what many believers seem to do (accept a God idea as convincing as long as it makes sense, and - as soon as it doesn´t make sense - ascribe this fact to God´s beyondness and incomprehensibility, and then resort to "It needn´t make sense, so the fact that it doesn´t make sense is consistent with the definition, so it not making sense makes sense, too.") I guess I could easily solve this problem.
Yet, the question was: Does it make sense to you?, and my answer is No.

 

[Received]

No...make no mistake, the metaphysical stuff doesn't make much sense either...but that's been discussed to death, hasn't it?

The idea that such a being could have wants or desires, let alone desire worship from something so far beneath it that we couldn't even compare ourselves to it, is laughably absurd.

How can you have wants or desires if you're "all powerful"? Explain how that works...because as far as I can imagine, any desires it has it could immediately fulfill. This is a very bland, empty, pointless existence...is it not? To put the desire of worship upon such a being makes no sense to me at all. A relationship? You're kidding right? Do you seek a relationship with the ants around your back porch? Imagine beings that were far far less than ants to you...and you still wouldn't be close to the comparison between you and this "god".

Do you love the microscopic dust mites that inhabit your ears? Could you "love" them in any meaningful sense? I don't see how such a being could love anything so far beneath it...again, it's an absurdity.

Again I see you're rejecting a specific conception of God, namely that he has desires. Thomas Aquinas made a good case that God doesn't have desires (divine impassability), and biologically it makes sense: you need a brain and body to have desires.

 

[Deidre32]

Then explain what they believe.

I said 'why' they believe. You are not better than believers. Believers aren't better than you. You have been on this forum a while...you should have learned that one upping is rather boring and sophomoric by now, no? lol

 

[keith99]

I said 'why' they believe. You are not better than believers. Believers aren't better than you. You have been on this forum a while...you should have learned that one upping is rather boring and sophomoric by now, no? lol

Look in the mirror. Your assessment of me is pure projection.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Again I see you're rejecting a specific conception of God, namely that he has desires. Thomas Aquinas made a good case that God doesn't have desires (divine impassability), and biologically it makes sense: you need a brain and body to have desires.

There's no winning, here. If you reject God in an abstract way, you haven't provided enough specifics. If you reject a specific God, you haven't rejected God in the abstract. The "gotcha" is always forthcoming.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

There's no winning, here. If you reject God in an abstract way, you haven't provided enough specifics. If you reject a specific God, you haven't rejected God in the abstract. The "gotcha" is always forthcoming.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's not a matter of abstract versus specific, but of how specific your conception of God is. At the very foundation is a deism-type deity who created the universe, and by this assumption has necessary metaphysical qualities and characteristics. Going any further is positing religious conceptions, one such being that God has desires.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's not a matter of abstract versus specific, but of how specific your conception of God is. At the very foundation is a deism-type deity who created the universe, and by this assumption has necessary metaphysical qualities and characteristics. Going any further is positing religious conceptions, one such being that God has desires.

In any discussion, people are going to shift between general and specific. You shouldn't make assumptions that just because someone explicitly rejects a specific God in one conversation, that they haven't put thought into rejecting God in a more general way. That's just playing games.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

In any discussion, people are going to shift between general and specific. You shouldn't make assumptions that just because someone explicitly rejects a specific God in one conversation, that they haven't put thought into rejecting God in a more general way. That's just playing games.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then maybe we shouldn't be using the term "general". My contention about a metaphysically foundational deity (deism) is different than any conception that would add religious layers to this foundation. That simple.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again I see you're rejecting a specific conception of God, namely that he has desires. Thomas Aquinas made a good case that God doesn't have desires (divine impassability), and biologically it makes sense: you need a brain and body to have desires.

Surely you understand why I'm making this argument, don't you? Your first sentence in your OP was...

"For the sake of this poll, God refers to a personal, interventionist God, and not an Eastern, pantheistic, God-is-the-universe conception. "

Are you saying now that I should drop this point? After all, a personal god must choose to be personal....an interventionist god must choose to intervene. Unless you want to argue that god does these things randomly without motive (without desire)...then I'm left with a god who is neither of those things.