The Relevance of the Concept of God

[Mazulu]

The Bible has quotes showing God in not omniscient. Here's one from the get go of Genesis. There are plenty more.

:yawn:

 

[Mazulu]

(!!!)

Speaking of books,

I am thinking about going to the firing range this weekend to see if this book can stop .40 caliber rounds. Just curious.

 

[spidergoat]

Speaking of books,

I am thinking about going to the firing range this weekend to see if this book can stop .40 caliber rounds. Just curious.

Awesome! Deep thoughts are massive and provoke an anti-penetrating response. Diamond hardened philosophical statements are the best refractory elements, of course, but prone to shattering.

 

[Mazulu]

Awesome! Deep thoughts are massive and provoke an anti-penetrating response. Diamond hardened philosophical statements are the best refractory elements, of course, but prone to shattering.

I figure if I pump enough rounds into the book, it will disintegrate. And then the universe will magically revert back to Christianity. That works for me.

 

[spidergoat]

I figure if I pump enough rounds into the book, it will disintegrate. And then the universe will magically revert back to Christianity. That works for me.

The Romans thought they could destroy Christianity with a few well placed heated rods in certain human orifices, but that backfired.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The Romans thought they could destroy Christianity with a few well placed heated rods in certain human orifices, but that backfired.

spidergoat, hence the origin of the term...backfired.

 

[Mazulu]

The Romans thought they could destroy Christianity with a few well placed heated rods in certain human orifices, but that backfired.

The violence of the roman empire is what fueled Christianity to become one of the dominant religions. The Crucifixion is a power religion symbol. In fact, the symbol of a cross is just incredibly powerful, a brilliant choice by early Christians to represent their religion.

 

[Syne]

Science and secularity aren't relevant because they are ubiquitous. They are relevant because they are accurate reflections of and adaptations to reality. Even theists cannot escape the godfree nature of modern life--of a culture that largely ignores the superstitions of bygone ages in favor of applicable practical information for living a happy and healthy life. The only places anyone takes seriously the concept of God are in churches, synagogues, and mosques where fellowbelievers can pretend God is real again and relevant in a world that virtually excludes such talk on all sides.

The vast majority of people have no real understanding of science...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120061
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
...so the relevance of science, to the majority of people, cannot be due to accuracy. It is the fact that the products of science are ubiquitous in their lives. Secularity has no metric for accuracy, and that you "cannot escape" it is the definition of ubiquitous. And do not confuse the over-representation of the irreligious in liberal media/entertainment for an accurate depiction of the real demographics. Again, ~80% believe in a god, so there must be significant overlap.

It is just too ubiquitous to not effect your life in some way (gay rights, for example).

But God DOESN'T effect my life. I can go for months not even thinking about this concept and live my life freely and happily without having it shoved down my throat as in ages past. If God is so relevant, why the predominance of our secular lifestyle in which not only does God never come up but is even considered a little nutty to bring up in an average everyday conversation?

Under-representation in media. That you can avoid overt expressions of such belief is largely a matter of the homogeneity of your associates (which is the same sort of mutual reinforcement you mention exists in churches).

Hence you posting in a religion subforum. Maybe you forget that you are posting in a forum on the subject of religion (specifically theology, since it is on a science forum). The theists who post here have sought out a science forum, either to proselytize or because science interests them and is not mutually exclusive with religion.

I'm a philosopher. I post about alot things that to the average joe on the street would be trivial and unimportant.

Exactly why the "average Joe" has little understanding of the accuracy of science.

Religion provides an exuberant wellspring of such spurious notions to hash out and quibble over. Call it my one secret vice.

I do not buy it. If you were a philosopher genuinely interested in religion, you would be capable of accepting more than a childish notion of god. Much more likely that you are just the garden variety religion-basher (probably motivated by its perceived slight to your lifestyle). No secret there.

But it is a hasty generalization to say all theists "push their religion" on others. And there are even forum guidelines against preaching and proselytizing. But if it bothers you so much, why do you post so much, even starting your own threads, in a Religion forum? Where would you post this stuff if this science forum did not have a religion subforum? Like theists seeking out opposing views to refine their own, would you seek out religion in its own forums if not made so readily available here?

I could post the same issues in the philosophy subforum or the morality subforum or even the free thoughts subforum. The issue of God for instance could easily be neutralized of it's religious connotations by simply asking what is the meaning of life, or where did everything come from. These are essentially metaphysical issues for me. The fact that I sometimes post in a religion subforum doesn't mean I am somehow acknowledging the truth or relevance of religion for our lives.

Then, again, why do you post in a religion subforum? If your posts would be just as at home in these other subfora, it seems you are seeking out the religious people who you should expect to post in a religion subforum.

I simply recognized the fact that theists generally use it here in an attempt to disparage the predominate scientific pov. When I first joined this group I couldn't understand why theists would want to do this. Now I see it has to do with them setting up their God concept as an absolute truth that invalidates science.

Really? It seems that most people (religious or not) seeking to disparage science do so in the science fora.

But your own argument works against you. Or do you think people would argue for the existence of a god would do so without any opposition? Atheism has nothing to argue unless refuting theism, whereas theism exists regardless of any opposition.

I see. So theists won't argue without opposition, and yet theism persists here in a science forum regardless of any opposition?

Again, Religion subforum. Take it up with the forum admin if you have a problem with that. "regardless of any opposition"?! You seriously cannot be so deluded to believe that there is, or even would possibly be, no opposition to theism here. There is constant and vehement opposition to theism here.

No surprise there. It IS a science forum afterall.

So you admit that theists post here because there is opposition, which the atheists dutifully supply so they can draw in the only reason they have to express explicitly atheist views. Glad we got that cleared up.

And? Again, a perceived opposition. So you only verify my earlier point. And their time spent here, on a science forum, is not representative of the bulk of their bandwidth. The very large majority of theists could not care less about apologetics.

I don't know that's true and you certainly don't either. It may very well be the case that most every theist online has an agenda of proving God exists in a world from which he is continuously and conspicuously missing. At least that has been my experience of theists online.

Nearly two-thirds of online Americans use the Internet for faith-related reasons. The 64% of Internet users who perform spiritual and religious activities online represent nearly 82 million Americans. Among the most popular and important spiritually-related online activities measured in a new national survey: 38% of the nation’s 128 million Internet users have sent and received email with spiritual content; 35% have sent or received online greeting cards related to religious holidays; 32% have gone online to read news accounts of religious events and affairs; 21% have sought information about how to celebrate religious holidays; 17% have looked for information about where they could attend religious services; 7% have made or responded to online prayer requests; and 7% have made donations to religious organizations or charities. - http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Faith-Online.aspx​

Where do you think apologetics fits in? And your experience of theists online is far from comprehensive, when it seems relegated to a science forum.

But I see you have given up on addressing the OP altogether in favor of simply religion-bashing. Typical.

The very premise of your thread, that conscience is somehow based on the notion of a divine observer of human behavior, was refuted at the very beginning. Since then this thread has become a quagmire of red herrings, strawmen, and non sequiters interspersed with ad hominems against atheists for allegedly not properly understanding the concept of God. At that point I lost interest in it. Which is why I don't discuss the op anymore.

"A divine observer of human behavior" is a repeated and demonstrable strawman since the OP opened with "I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god." The "quagmire" is of your own making, seemingly to evade the OP with your strawman (which is only your insistence on a childish notion of god).

But thanks for admitting your posts in this thread are off-topic.

 

[spidergoat]

The violence of the roman empire is what fueled Christianity to become one of the dominant religions. The Crucifixion is a power religion symbol. In fact, the symbol of a cross is just incredibly powerful, a brilliant choice by early Christians to represent their religion.

That means they did it for spite. It wasn't the religion itself, necessarily, it was the religion as a rebellious symbol.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat, hence the origin of the term...backfired.

I see what you did there.

 

[Mazulu]

That means they did it for spite. It wasn't the religion itself, necessarily, it was the religion as a rebellious symbol.

Not spite. Conviction.

 

[Syne]

The Bible has quotes showing God in not omniscient. Here's one from the get go of Genesis. There are plenty more.

Genesis 3:8
And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden.

And if you take the Bible as 100% literal, it is no wonder that you insist upon a childish notion of god that cannot be differentiated from religion.

 

[wynn]

And if you take the Bible as 100% literal, it is no wonder that you insist upon a childish notion of god that cannot be differentiated from religion.

Aww, if only he'd be as fluent in, say, Hindu scriptures as he is in the Bible! That ought to be fun!

 

[wynn]

That suggests ethical egoism, the idea that all moral actions are performed by the actor for his/her own self-fulfillment.

We can define 'altruism' as something like "unselfish concern for the welfare of others, selflessness". It's "the opposite of selfishness, and involves doing for others without any expectation of reward". (That's lifted from a couple of dictionaries.)

Or put another way...

"As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings... This is called a sublime abiding, here and now." (from the Karaniya Metta Sutta, SN 1.8)

It appears you've seen this thread after I had replied, but you haven't said anything further.


To wrap things up, here are three essays by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on this topic -

Metta Means Goodwill

Educating Compassion

The Limits of the Unlimited Attitudes


It would be interesting to explore how traditional Buddhism with the brahmaviharas differs from (modern) notions of altruism.

 

[(Q)]

And if you take the Bible as 100% literal, it is no wonder that you insist upon a childish notion of god that cannot be differentiated from religion.

LOL. I have provided you a quote from the Bible showing God is no omniscient, which is what you asked for. That has nothing to do with whether I take the Bible literally or has anything to do with differentiating God from religion. You are clearly misdirecting the discussion because you have nothing to say to that verse and the many others that show God is not omniscient. It is a disingenuous tactic you continually employ in many discussions when others show you are wrong.

 

[Yazata]

"A divine observer of human behavior" is a repeated and demonstrable strawman since the OP opened with "I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god." The "quagmire" is of your own making, seemingly to evade the OP with your strawman (which is only your insistence on a childish notion of god).

Here's the complete text of that first post. The highlighting is by me.

I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god. As such, the concept must have been selected for in the evolutionary process, and if so, it must possess some survival value. Now people will be fairly justified to point out that its survival value may have initially been one of promoting group cooperation but that we now have other institutions that serve that purpose. So why does religion persist? The selection of the evolutionary process is ongoing, so it would not be consistent to assume it persists for any other reason than ongoing survival value. But what value beyond that provided by other institutions of group cooperation?

There is one fairly glaring lack in all other such institutions. None offer a means to exercise (work to strengthen) the faculty of conscience. Only the concept of god provides a postulated observer whereby individuals can further develop an objective view of themselves. A postulated view that does not have the shortcoming inherent in all other human institutions that lead people to believe that something is only wrong if you get caught. Now we could imagine that 100% surveillance could serve the same purpose (someone watching you when you think no one else is looking), but we would also consider that an abhorrent breach of personal privacy. We could also be tempted to at least tell children fairy tales about such surveillance, but children tend to see through lies earlier that expected. Just like a doctor's delivery of a placebo can alter its efficacy, it would seem that belief in the concept of god (or an equivalent ever-watching observer) might effect its ability to strengthen conscience.

Now I am open to any alternate suggestions of means to cultivating conscience. There may well be others, and I would be very interested if anyone can describe some. Obviously, our empathy for others can curtail behavior when in the presence of those others (knowing they will be aware of our misdeeds), but in perceived isolation only conscience suffices.

So even if god does not exist but the concept of god may have a survival value selected for through evolution in the form of the faculty for conscience, this is very relevant, even to atheists. Atheists often complain about feeling isolated, ostracized, etc.. Others are evolutionarily justified in maintaining a mistrust of those who do not have any readily apparent means of developing their own conscience. So while developed social behaviors may well curtail behavior in public, others may have no reason to trust atheists to remain upstanding when unobserved.

 

[Yazata]

And if you take the Bible as 100% literal, it is no wonder that you insist upon a childish notion of god that cannot be differentiated from religion.

What exactly is your own "notion of god"? Why do you think that it's superior to other people's notions? Apparently there's some hierarchy here, ranging from "childish" at one extreme, to something else (your idea?) at the other. So how does that work and what justifies it?

 

[Syne]

LOL. I have provided you a quote from the Bible showing God is no omniscient, which is what you asked for. That has nothing to do with whether I take the Bible literally or has anything to do with differentiating God from religion. You are clearly misdirecting the discussion because you have nothing to say to that verse and the many others that show God is not omniscient. It is a disingenuous tactic you continually employ in many discussions when others show you are wrong.

Where did I ask you for ANYTHING showing whether god was omniscient?

Again, "I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god." So your insistence on ONE specific god is not generally representative. As this is a science forum and I have specified abstract concept, it should be obvious that the general theological attributes apply:

Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Theological_approaches​

The fact that you apparently want to limit the discussion to a specifically Abrahamic god simply illustrates that your arguments cannot be applied to the general concept of god (you know, the one actually discussed in the OP). But I will play along with your attempt to poison the well a bit. The Bible was written by men, from the perspective of men, so god would tend to be anthropomorphized. And that one verse is cherry-picking when compared to all the verses that address omniscience directly: http://www.openbible.info/topics/omniscience I mean seriously, are you so deluded that you think you can discount one of the primary attributes associated with a god, especially with one cherry-picked verse?

 

[cslewis]

The Bible has quotes showing God in not omniscient. Here's one from the get go of Genesis. There are plenty more.
Genesis 3:8
And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden.

Don't fool yourselves, please: GOD is OMNISCIENT.(!!!)
THE URANTIA PAPERS:

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-3-attributes-god
Paper 3 The Attributes of God

(44.1) 3:0.1 GOD is everywhere present; the Universal Father rules the circle of eternity. But he rules in the local universes in the persons of his Paradise Creator Sons, even as he bestows life through these Sons. “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Sons.” These Creator Sons of God are the personal expression of himself in the sectors of time and to the children of the whirling planets of the evolving universes of space.

(44.2) 3:0.2 The highly personalized Sons of God are clearly discernible by the lower orders of created intelligences, and so do they compensate for the invisibility of the infinite and therefore less discernible Father. The Paradise Creator Sons of the Universal Father are a revelation of an otherwise invisible being, invisible because of the absoluteness and infinity inherent in the circle of eternity and in the personalities of the Paradise Deities.

(44.3) 3:0.3 Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature. And this universal function of creatorship is eternally manifested as it is conditioned and controlled by all the co-ordinated attributes of the infinite and divine reality of the First Source and Center. We sincerely doubt whether any one characteristic of the divine nature can be regarded as being antecedent to the others, but if such were the case, then the creatorship nature of Deity would take precedence over all other natures, activities, and attributes. And the creatorship of Deity culminates in the universal truth of the Fatherhood of God.

1. God’s Everywhereness
(44.4) 3:1.1 The ability of the Universal Father to be everywhere present, and at the same time, constitutes his omnipresence. God alone can be in two places, in numberless places, at the same time. God is simultaneously present “in heaven above and on the earth beneath”; as the Psalmist exclaimed: “Whither shall I go from your spirit? or whither shall I flee from your presence?”

(44.5) 3:1.2 “‘I am a God at hand as well as afar off,’ says the Lord. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’” The Universal Father is all the time present in all parts and in all hearts of his far-flung creation. He is “the fullness of him who fills all and in all,” and “who works all in all,” and further, the concept of his personality is such that “the heaven (universe) and heaven of heavens (universe of universes) cannot contain him.” It is literally true that God is all and in all. But even that is not all of God. The Infinite can be finally revealed only in infinity; the cause can never be fully comprehended by an analysis of effects; the living God is immeasurably greater than the sum total of creation that has come into being as a result of the creative acts of his unfettered free will. God is revealed throughout the cosmos, but the cosmos can never contain or encompass the entirety of the infinity of God.

(45.1) 3:1.3 The Father’s presence unceasingly patrols the master universe. “His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit to the ends of it; and there is nothing hidden from the light thereof.”
(...)

 

[(Q)]

Don't fool yourselves, please: GOD is OMNISCIENT.(!!!)
THE URANTIA PAPERS:

Not according the Bible, He isn't.