Atheism and the Christian God.

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

there is no such world, at least not for catholics: god is a necessary being, which means that he exists in every possible world.

Ok. My concept of how a universe-creating god should be like, differs from yours. We can leave it with that.

and herein lies the rub, for you: you need to demonstrate that the catholic concept of god is incoherent, not just that some arbitrary definition fails the test.

Fine. I think, I already did this in another thread but anyway. Please indicate, if anything of the following does not comply with the Catholic concept (albeit some vocabulary).

God creates an universe, life, the human mind/soul/concessiousness, morality, etc for the purpose of bringing forth minds that want and are worthy to spend eternity with him (aka go to heaven). During life humans have to follow a certain code of conduct laid out by God to prove themselves worthy otherwise they are damned (aka go to hell).

There are at least two problems I have with that concept, I dare call them inconsistencies:

1. How that code of conduct was transmitted hardly goes along with the notion that God wants all humans to go to heaven.
2. I can understand, why that god wants humans to follow his moral code, but why a being, so powerfull to create this universe, should insist on how to worship him, should insist on worship at all (what is it, vanity?), and should insist, that everybody must believe the resurrection stunt, he has allegedly performed, to be worthy of heaven, is totally beyond my comprehension.

 

[cheddarsox]

Nan S:

I do not believe the divine has human feelings and concerns. So while the divine is pervasive and active, it is not “concerned” in a human sense of the word. It is not worrying or fussing or fretting over details. It does not care the way humans care. It does not need to. We care because we are vulnerable, have needs, fears etc. The divine is not vulnerable and does not need to be concerned in the human sense of the word.

In other words is the Divine really unconcerned about our behavior, or only concerned about the “big stuff”? If the latter, where is the line drawn between important and unimportant matters?
**
Again, important and unimportant are human concepts, the divine does not have human needs or limitations, does not need to prioritize, so to speak because it is pervasive and capable of being all at all times.**

Wouldn’t you agree that the Divine established in our being some kind of natural law, that He gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong? If so, would not an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (i.e., completely pervasive) Divinity be also concerned about whether we followed His natural law?

I do not believe that anything can happen that is outside of natural law. If it is possible, it is because the divine law allows it to be possible. Nothing that anyone or anything can do goes against what is divinely possible. In the ultimate picture, the divine has everything under control. What we do may “hurt” us, or cause us suffering, but it does not hurt the divine.

Only that God wasn’t content to know theoretically what it is to be human but actually lived directly among us as one of us, personally experiencing human life, “a man like us in all ways except sin.”

**This is a matter of your faith. I agree that the divine experiences fully human life. The details of what that means will certainly differ between my faith and your own.
**

I, too, was the victim of poor catechesis. It seemed to be very prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s, and is perpetuated by those poorly taught students now being the volunteer teachers in our churches.

**I lived and practiced the Catholic faith for 20 yrs. I was part of a devout family, attended Catholic school for 12 yrs and did a great deal of extra reading on my own, then and since. If, somehow, the church kept their real concept of God hidden all that time, through all those means, then I cannot be responsible for the concept of the Catholic God that was presented to me from all those sources.

If they have the truth, then share it with the members of the church. I feel fairly confident that my disagreements are with the concept, not due to a lack of understanding. I also have contact with the church and the beliefs through the folks here, friends and family that are practicing, and I have some understanding about what they believe.

---

I don’t reject the divine, I reject what I know to be a misrepresentation of the divine.**

It just makes me wonder why you reject that the Divine would be personally uninvolved in your life. Is it because of prayers that were not answered in your favor? Or is it because you are deeply enmeshed in petty sins of your own, and dismiss them as unimportant to the Divine because you don’t want to face that you will be held accountable for them?

**I do not reject that the divine is involved in my life. I believe that the divine is involved in the most pervasive of ways, but no, that is not a personal way, because I do not experience divinity as personlike.

My prayers have been “answered” in ways I never dreamed possible.

I believe that everyone is accountable for everything we do. I believe we are accountable in every moment through natural law. We don’t have to wait until we die to see how it all ends up, we are living the consequences moment by moment, and so are all those we share the earth with.

Leaving the church does not “protect” anyone from reality. I did not leave because I couldn’t take the discipline, or because I didn’t understand it, I left because I didn’t believe it.**

You keep repeating that you are a pantheist. I answer that someone who tries to stand for everything winds up standing for nothing. Sad.

I repeat it because this thread is “for atheists” and I did want to distiguish, for the sake of clarity and honesty, that I was not speaking for atheists.

**I do not stand for everything, I don’t even know what that statement means. I have a distinct faith and set of beliefs. As distinct as your own. Your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my faith does not diminish or alter it, as I hope another person’s misunderstanding or misrepresentationof your faith does not alter your own.
**
cheddar

 

[Philthy]

Hi AnAtheist:

BTW - the term atheist is whimpy - it tells us what you are not. Do you have a term or phrase to describe what you/your beliefs are?

AnAtheist:

I was thinking of antinomies.

Very good. There was no example of an antimony in the link you provided, nor did they discuss how they were relevant to our discussion - I think you were supposed to do that. Please provide an example of an antimony and how it relates to the concept of knowledge.

AnAtheist:

If knowledge is a subset of thinking - yes. See how it works? We come up with a definition, and think about the consequences.

Actually what I see is a “definition” that we create with obvious limitations and then you try to apply it as if the truth you gain from it is universal and without limitation. Again, the example that comes to mind is your application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to any observer whether that observation is subject to the laws of physics as we know them or not. Now you may say that you don’t believe such observation is possible, but you have no means of supporting that belief any more than I can support mine.

AnAtheist:

We are endagered here to confuse “cause” with “responsibility”. The latter needs a moral context, the first does not.

AnAtheist:

I’m not certain of that, but I didn’t mean to imply any moral implications whatsoever - they are not part of the question.

AnAtheist:
If there is a defined morality causation may impliy responsibility. Now, that’s interesting. Does the causation of the universe make the creator responsibe for it? The Christian creator is obviously not responsible for it. Because he has also “created” morality, which he is allow to break anytime he wants perhaps?

Did you mean to make a point here? Please use your keyboard to continue your ideas as statements and try to limit the ambiguous questions unless you are prepared to answer them yourself. Asking questions is not an effective means of communication unless you know my answers and are trying to lead my thoughts to connect two issues I was failing to connect.
I think you are reading into my hypothetical too much.

AnAtheist:

Oh, btw, I stick to A.

Thank you for your brevity and clarity. Would you please clear up one thing for me? How, in choosing A, do you dissociate the willful act of procreation by two individuals from the actions of their progeny? Is not true, in a sense, that although the progeny are the immediate cause of their actions, those actions would never have resulted without the first action of creation by the parents and are therefore contigent upon it? Not too deep, don’t read too much into it - it has nothing to do with morals.

sorry to belabor the point -

Phil

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Fine. I think, I already did this in another thread but anyway. Please indicate, if anything of the following does not comply with the Catholic concept (albeit some vocabulary).

God creates an universe, life, the human mind/soul/concessiousness, morality, etc for the purpose of bringing forth minds that want and are worthy to spend eternity with him (aka go to heaven). During life humans have to follow a certain code of conduct laid out by God to prove themselves worthy otherwise they are damned (aka go to hell).

this is a little off.

1. god created us so that we could be happy.
2. we “have to” follow a certain moral code in the same way that we “have to” eat a balanced diet: if we don’t, then we’ll just end up getting hurt. we’re not supposed to do the right thing in order to gain a reward - we’re supposed to do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

AnAtheist:

There are at least two problems I have with that concept, I dare call them inconsistencies:

1. How that code of conduct was transmitted hardly goes along with the notion that God wants all humans to go to heaven.

how so?

AnAtheist:

1. I can understand, why that god wants humans to follow his moral code, but why a being, so powerfull to create this universe, should insist on how to worship him, should insist on worship at all (what is it, vanity?), and should insist, that everybody must believe the resurrection stunt, he has allegedly performed, to be worthy of heaven, is totally beyond my comprehension.

A) there are a lot of things beyond your comprehension, and mine - what has that got to do with anything?

B) god “insists” on worship only inasmuch as he “insists” that we do the right thing. god deserves our worship, ergo we ought to give it to him.

 

[chb03c]

AnAtheist:

Just to make things clear: I do not deny the existence of free will. In fact, I think quantum physics very much allows it, as it allows uncaused events. What I deny is the parallel existence of free will and an all-knowing universe-creating mastermind.

However Quantum physics does not explain human behavor. My choices are not dictated by how the particles in my body interact. All quantum physics can do is explain how my body works.