Eljay:

Regarding your 'glass of water'... If I walk into a room after you have filled a glass with water, why would it not hold true that it was once empty?

It was indeed empty prior to you filling it was it not?

I am not certain that I understand what you are saying, so I will venture a guess, and forgive me if I am wrong.

If you mean that God cannot be defined, I do want to make a comment. I believe that millions don't want a God that can be defined. That way, God can be what ever they want Him to be at the time. They can do what they want, set their own rules, and no one can tell them what to do. So, they just want to leave Him undefined. That is why He defines Himself so many times in the Scriptures. Just so we know.

In that context, I agree that He cannot be defined by us, but I disagree when it comes to Him. I believe that He has defined Himself. We should accept His deinition. Some examples are as follows:

Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
Isa 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Isa 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:


Art

Art... thank you for your consideration, know it is shared...

I do indeed think that 'God' cannot be defined. Not only do I think 'God' cannot be, I think 'God' should not be. However, it is not at all for the reasons you have described. Those do not apply to myself. Morals and values are indeed important for a successful and fair society. The Bible has plenty of wonderful 'rules' that I completely agree with. The ones that I do not agree with have nothing to do with a feeling that I 'do not want someone to tell me what to do.' I can assure you of that.

The failure to encompass humanitarian values is a problem in the Bible. As is justified murder of innocent people. It is even more bothersome for me, when those actions have been attributed to an entity such as 'God'... That is merely men who side-step personal responsibility in my opinion.

I absolutely believe that 'God' is in all things. I do not believe, however, that 'God' as described in the Bible is accurate.

Something to think about... similar to Pascal's Wager...

What if the Bible has it all wrong about 'God'?

I do not at all deny existance, I just deny it as it can be taught. If man can find words to describe it, it just lost value... I do not want it to lose value...

because to leesen the chance of argument you will always have to include what the believers also believe

one cannot say that God has no knowledge of something because a believer will say that God is all-knowing

so the way that God would know if someone was moral would be if one didn't follow the laws of the God

that is how believers can blame man for creating evil and sin and not God when in fact without the laws of God neither sin or evil would exist

In response to funches:

I have yet to witness a sound argument that an omnipotent and omniscient being ('God') would not 'know' it was creating 'evil', by creating the circumstances which led up to the choices that brought about the existance of it.

Moreover, there is the issue of a creator only being able to create that which it consists of, to begin with. How does one create something that it does not have, unless it is all... without judgement... it is all... that makes sense.

I have also heard the notion that 'God' has has given mankind but does not possess 'free will'...see above

That one I have yet to even begin to reason out.

I do not see any way around the notion that my OP addressed, other than God is not as has been described...

because "creative soul" it's a catch 22 ...God didn't create evil but only created the senerio so that evil can be created that way God's lawyers and his spin doctors aka (believers)make the argument that God doesn't have to take the blame for it because in a believers faith God can do no wrong...when God is actually guilty of all crimes committed within that senerio

funches:

Agreed with the conclusion, as based on a personal theistic or average believers point of view concerning an omni-God...

There are so many logical issues concerning the descriptions of 'God' in the Bible...

Circular reasoning leads one back to the same point when a believer attempts to defend the existance of 'evil'.


If you are an omni-God... omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and you are going to create a world with sentient beings, even with 'free will', then it only holds true that you will create the best world that is possible. This world is obviously not the best possible.

For those to make an argument that God is not responsible for the existance of 'evil', is to change some part of the definition of their 'God'... by their own choice.

Sometimes crawling back into the transcendental safety net of...

'We cannot comprehend God's thoughts' or some such reasoning.

To which I say....

Fine then, just say that..." I have no idea of God's nature.", and leave it at that. Quit defining it for everybody.

The existance of 'evil' is proof that the God of the Bible does not exist. It does not, however, prove that there is no 'God'.

I don't see how quoting a book, written by men(!) wanting to control other men(!), can ever become a sane way of discussing the appearance of matter (of which we know very little by the way).

To me, any distribution of one's faith automatically ensures a dumbing down and oversimplification of wholly indescribable personal truths.
And the more people you want to convince, the more dogmatic you get.

I'll keep my faith to myself ;o)

Lonely_Spirit:

You said:

******* I don't see how quoting a book, written by men(!) wanting to control other men(!), can ever become a sane way of discussing the appearance of matter (of which we know very little by the way).*******

I say:

>>>>>>> To focus on an issue, it must be discussed. No matter if it makes sense as it is written, it must be the focus.<<<<<<<


You said:

*******To me, any distribution of one's faith automatically ensures a dumbing down and oversimplification of wholly indescribable personal truths.*******

I say:

>>>>>>> I could not agree more. Words will indeed remove value. It is not my intent to spread my beliefs. Just to bear witness as to how illogical the anthropomorphism is. People should not be blind to the fact that there is no such thing as an illogical 'God', such is what is being held as the most common belief of 'God'. <<<<<<<


You said:

******* And the more people you want to convince, the more dogmatic you get.*******


I say:

>>>>>>> I know, I know... The more I try to convince of the non-existance of a Biblical God? It unfortunately requires the examination and discussion of the dogma being discussed. It has been 'disproven' as such. I would rather people find a logical picture of 'God' to focus on, the illogical must be dismissed first. Remove all that cannot be, and one will be left with that which may be. <<<<<<<


You said:

******* I'll keep my faith to myself. *******


I say:

>>>>>>> While I may attempt dissection of what I feel are dangerous and false notions that are perpetuating violence and the separation of 'God', it is made with the intent to have people think about what they are saying and moreover pushing as truth. Mine also does not require a label... <<<<<<<

And welcome to the site...

well look at it this way

if God did not create evil then that means man did.. that would mean that God did not create everything in existence like believers claim he has ...

also God did not create sin ..Man created sin ..so that is two things that God didn't create ...so how many other things exist that God didn't create

so that believers say that God is the creator of everything is not true

Still at it Funches?

Funches:

I have also heard it claimed that 'God' is not responsible for creating 'evil', or the circumstances which led up to it.

Ok then... 'God' is not an omni-God...omniscience and/or omnipotence are in question, at least one of which is false.

If 'God' is responsible...

Ok then... 'God' is still not an omni-God... omnibenevolence and/or omnipotence are in question, and at least one of which is false.

Either way does not work...

Then comes the transcendental safety net...

I was just having a little fun..but the bottom line is since God is supposely all-knowing then God would knew the outcome of everything before he created anything but yet created it anyway as his Divine Plan ...therefore God is the creator of evil

>>>>>>> To focus on an issue, it must be discussed. No matter if it makes sense as it is written, it must be the focus.<<<<<<<

Is the "issue" the bible?!? I was stabbing at BillingsDreamer, Probably should have mentioned that...

>>>>>>> there is no such thing as an illogical 'God'<<<<<<<<

Logical and illogical are terms invented by men as well! Logic, to me, means the theoretical simplification of the world.
It often sounds nice and makes sense to humans, but it is an 'inter-human' invention. Much like good and evil. And moral... Sin. Love?

>>>>>>> there is no such thing as an illogical 'God'<<<<<<<

There is no such thing as: "there is no such thing..."


>>>>>>> And welcome to the site...drinker <<<<<<<<

Thank you!

Hi everyone,

Art:

That was good, made me laugh!

I suppose if one believes that men create their deities, then it would be fitting for the God of the Bible to have been an authority. In this way, men who were most knowledgeable and considered to be closest to understanding God and The Word of God, would be considered 'authority' on Earth, and thus have better control of the population.

But that's the subject of this topic, so I will move on to reply to the OP.

Hey Di...


Lonely_Spirit:

*******There is no such thing as: "there is no such thing..." *******

>>>>>>> Point taken!... Understood, I mean. <<<<<<<


While logic is man-made and part of language, if it is not used, what then should be the measure?

It is kinda like... uh... all we have, right?

Good Topic, Creative.
The questions you pose are not easy ones, and they can not be answered without first understanding the 'nature' of God. So in an effort to discuss, individual arguments, I will divide into parts, my replies.

PART I

There are a couple things to consider in such an argument.
First, is God an entity? In other words, does God have mass and form? If mass and form exist and from what we know of such structure, it MUST conform in some way its surroundings. It would have to be subject to all the laws (we call physics) pertaining to its surroundings.

If God is in any way consistant with mass and form, than It would have some understanding of 'laws', at least those laws of physics that 'confine' It or 'limit' It within the realm of Its existance.

To endow God with 'entity' status (mass & form), actually makes some sense and here's why. If another entity chose to 'create' in its likeness, but was unable to 'duplicate' Its own properties (as in procreation) than It would not be able to create It's equal. Since It could not, It would create what It was able. Obviously the creations would NEVER be perfect becase they were created form available resouces and not from mere thought alone.

If the being in question was able to create through thought alone, why would it create anything less than itself? If you imagine such a being and then 'personify' that being with 'human' emotions you could say the being was lonely.

Now it stands to reason that if a being can be lonely, than it has to have an awareness of 'self'. Unable to create an equal, it created a 'diversion' instead.

Those who believe we have a 'soul' that is in some fashion a part of the Creator being (as in man was given life through the breath of God) or (the flame that is within was given of God) and the like, also believe that this part of their (human)being, can be made eternal and will return to God.

Taking ALL things above into consideration, if there is any actual piece of the Creator being within us, it also makes sense that the Creator would want it back. But it make little sense to imagine that the 'personality' of the one in whom the 'flame' existed would go with it on it return.

However, if the Creator made man (to use Art's words) more fun and User Friendly, than the Creator, being a part of EVERY human, would have created a way to occupy It's (time) by experiencing EVERY possible scenario that a physical 3-D plain might have to offer to a human. When it grow tired of this diversion, it will simply call in all the pieces still outstanding in the remaining population and man will be no more.

BUT THE THING IS - is that really a God to be worshipped?

Grant it, I have taken a great deal of liberty in only posing one option. The important part of this reply is actually -

Does the God of the Bible have mass and form? If that is so, Creative, then yes it is possible that such an entity (aware of self) might be able to understand the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, based upon the physics by which it it limited. And It could then impose the idea of right & wrong / good & bad onto its creations. But it is the creations who would take it to levels far beyond what the 'Entity' might have imagined. Perhaps, that is part of the diversion it created for Itself by making making man aware of self.

PART DUO:
For those who do not believe that God has mass and form.

This is definately a matter for hypetheticals. We must first 'imagine' what kind of intelligence could exist without a physical 'being'? Also, what 'sort' of intelligence could exist totally ununified?

First of all, such an intelligence would not be capable of 'self' awareness as there is no 'self' to be considered. This being the case, there would be no possibility for such intellect to have emotional attributes. Existing as pure intelligence with no form would render it incapable of anything less than logic. Emotions are niether part of our intelligence nor would they be logical to something to which it has no purpose.

So in this case, such a 'Creator' would not have been able to consider 'emotions' into their creative equations. Thus the only right and wrong / good or bad that exist have been brought into existence by the 'emotions' of man.

Of course we might consider why such an intelligence would consider Creating anything. Perhaps it reasoned that it could not experience fully, through intellect alone all the dimensions and realms it was able to be in contact with. So in an effort to determine if it was capable of expanding its intelligence, it created living entities through which it could witness life as it might exist within other dimensions.

This is much more like the panthiestic view, but just like in the God Entity view, they still believe they are in some way designed to include a part of the origin of that intelligence. In this way, they still seek and eternal existence, returning after death to the purity that was the original intelligence.

I am athiest, I don't hold with an eternal existence, but I can fathom that some pure form of intelligence, might utilize the resouces at hand to create living things. Not to LORD over, not even to be a part of that creation, but to learn something new.

After all, why would such a creator, "CARE" when the experiments are done?

So perhaps, at this point, we are alone. Perhaps the experiment is over and our individual fates, the fate of the human race, and even of this planet is in our hands alone.

Thank you Di...Artsy and Lee may be stomping their feet at me soon...

I am tired of 'goofing' around...

Wow... this is just part one? Ok... I have copied and pasted your entire response here below. After reading each section, I will respond as necessary. I have the feeling that you will be testing me on my thoughts...
----------------------------------------------------------------


******* There are a couple things to consider in such an argument. First, is God an entity? In other words, does God have mass and form? If mass and form exist and from what we know of such structure, it MUST conform in some way its surroundings. It would have to be subject to all the laws (we call physics) pertaining to its surroundings.

If God is in any way consistant with mass and form, than It would have some understanding of 'laws', at least those laws of physics that 'confine' It or 'limit' It within the realm of Its existance. *******

>>>>>>> In short.. yes, absolutely what is known must 'fit'. However, I must ask... why do you feel 'it' must conform or be confined in it's existance? What if 'its' existance presupposed any material existance? An eternal and infinite substance is prior in nature to it's affections and or attributes.<<<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------



******* To endow God with 'entity' status (mass & form), actually makes some sense and here's why. If another entity chose to 'create' in its likeness, but was unable to 'duplicate' Its own properties (as in procreation) than It would not be able to create It's equal. Since It could not, It would create what It was able. Obviously the creations would NEVER be perfect becase they were created form available resouces and not from mere thought alone. *******


>>>>>>> How does anyone know what the 'creator' was attempting to do? I would choose to not assume that I know this intent. That's just me... <<<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------


If the being in question was able to create through thought alone, why would it create anything less than itself? If you imagine such a being and then 'personify' that being with 'human' emotions you could say the being was lonely.

Now it stands to reason that if a being can be lonely, than it has to have an awareness of 'self'. Unable to create an equal, it created a 'diversion' instead.

>>>>>>> See above answer... and I would not even begin to attempt a personification of 'God'. I have reason to believe that God's only physical 'experience' is through 'individual' sentient creation not as a separate material form, rather all and any material form, and the attributes and/or affections thereof. <<<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------



******* Those who believe we have a 'soul' that is in some fashion a part of the Creator being (as in man was given life through the breath of God) or (the flame that is within was given of God) and the like, also believe that this part of their (human)being, can be made eternal and will return to God.

Taking ALL things above into consideration, if there is any actual piece of the Creator being within us, it also makes sense that the Creator would want it back. But it make little sense to imagine that the 'personality' of the one in whom the 'flame' existed would go with it on it return. *******

>>>>>>> I again cannot speak for another per se, a 'soul' or 'spirit' could be many things to different people, I suppose. I would not say that 'God' would "want it back".I suppose 'it' just goes back from where 'it' came. As does all material existence when it ceases. <<<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------



******* However, if the Creator made man (to use Art's words) more fun and User Friendly, than the Creator, being a part of EVERY human, would have created a way to occupy It's (time) by experiencing EVERY possible scenario that a physical 3-D plain might have to offer to a human. When it grow tired of this diversion, it will simply call in all the pieces still outstanding in the remaining population and man will be no more.

BUT THE THING IS - is that really a God to be worshipped? *******

>>>>>>> Again a personification of God...worship, surely you jest... like an egotistical 5-year-old child who gets pissed, hurt, and jealous when his friends go play with someone else??? <<<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------



******* Grant it, I have taken a great deal of liberty in only posing one option. The important part of this reply is actually -

Does the God of the Bible have mass and form? If that is so, Creative, then yes it is possible that such an entity (aware of self) might be able to understand the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, based upon the physics by which it it limited. And It could then impose the idea of right & wrong / good & bad onto its creations. But it is the creations who would take it to levels far beyond what the 'Entity' might have imagined. Perhaps, that is part of the diversion it created for Itself by making making man aware of self. *******

>>>>>>> Honestly Di, the Bible's commonly held notion of 'God' does not exist according to it's own definition... and I am, and have been more than ready to move beyond that archaic definition. I will not defend it, as there is no defense.<<<<<<<

The concept of "God" is above human concepts of good and evil. Morality is a human concept.