Creator and operator of the universe, what's wrong with this concept of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize that all I have to do is substitute God’s plan and blame it? How about a 17 year-old girl in Colorado dying from a school shooting? According to the belief that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator and operator of the universe, he, ** without a single doubt**, allowed that dear child to die and should be shunned accordingly.

By my belief, it is the absolutely tragic result of mental illness and easy access to weapons and explosives for another 17 year-old who also died. No God involved…if one even exists, it, he , she, is just as surprised and saddened.

It’s really simple…if God is in control, …never mind…He’s Not.

John
OldCelt, what if the death of that 17 year old , cause many people to come to Christ. Would you say that her death was senseless? It may look senseless to us but to God who says past, present and future happening in the now, it isn’t senseless at all. Maybe that girl was headed to hell if God didn’t take her in that instance. We finite beings can’t always see God’s full plan right now.

Some people say that rape is senseless , and why didn’t God intervene every time a woman gets raped. I once read about a woman that was raped when she was a teen. The horror and anxiety she went through was unimaginable. Now this lady is a counselor for rape victims.

Does her rate seem senseless to you now?
Imagine a world where God intervened every time something bad was going to happen. First it would violate our free will (and without free will we wouldn’t be able to have choice,and without choice, we wouldn’t be able to love), but we would never learn anything valuable such as kindness, agape love, empathy and understanding.

You have to learn to stop looking at life through the lens of the world and start looking at life through heavens eyes.

Being that your a deist. I also have an uncle who is a deist, but he is now more of a spiritual deist then a bare one deist, I have learned a little bit about deism.

You seem to be a touchey feeley kind of person that needs something he can touch and study. Have you ever researched the shroud of turin?
It has some very interesting scientific and historic evidence for authenticity.

It lead agnostics like Mark Antonacci (now. Protestant ) and doctor August Acceta (now catholic) back to Christ.
 
You do realize that all I have to do is substitute God’s plan and blame it? How about a 17 year-old girl in Colorado dying from a school shooting? According to the belief that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator and operator of the universe, he, ** without a single doubt**, allowed that dear child to die and should be shunned accordingly.

By my belief, it is the absolutely tragic result of mental illness and easy access to weapons and explosives for another 17 year-old who also died. No God involved…if one even exists, it, he , she, is just as surprised and saddened.

It’s really simple…if God is in control, …never mind…He’s Not.

John
If God isn’t in control, John, neither are you nor I nor anyone else because all our thoughts, choices, decisions, conclusions and actions must be the result of physical causes beyond our control! Free will doesn’t exist in a Godless world.
 
You do realize that all I have to do is substitute God’s plan and blame it? How about a 17 year-old girl in Colorado dying from a school shooting? According to the belief that God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator and operator of the universe, he, ** without a single doubt**, allowed that dear child to die and should be shunned accordingly.

By my belief, it is the absolutely tragic result of mental illness and easy access to weapons and explosives for another 17 year-old who also died. No God involved…if one even exists, it, he , she, is just as surprised and saddened.

It’s really simple…if God is in control, …never mind…He’s Not.

John
" My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense. "
 
" My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense. "
👍 In an amoral universe moral protests are meaningless.
 
OldCelt, what if the death of that 17 year old , cause many people to come to Christ. Would you say that her death was senseless? It may look senseless to us but to God who says past, present and future happening in the now, it isn’t senseless at all. Maybe that girl was headed to hell if God didn’t take her in that instance. We finite beings can’t always see God’s full plan right now.

Some people say that rape is senseless , and why didn’t God intervene every time a woman gets raped. I once read about a woman that was raped when she was a teen. The horror and anxiety she went through was unimaginable. Now this lady is a counselor for rape victims.

Does her rate seem senseless to you now?
Imagine a world where God intervened every time something bad was going to happen. First it would violate our free will (and without free will we wouldn’t be able to have choice,and without choice, we wouldn’t be able to love), but we would never learn anything valuable such as kindness, agape love, empathy and understanding.

You have to learn to stop looking at life through the lens of the world and start looking at life through heavens eyes.

Being that your a deist. I also have an uncle who is a deist, but he is now more of a spiritual deist then a bare one deist, I have learned a little bit about deism.

You seem to be a touchey feeley kind of person that needs something he can touch and study. Have you ever researched the shroud of turin?
It has some very interesting scientific and historic evidence for authenticity.

It lead agnostics like Mark Antonacci (now. Protestant ) and doctor August Acceta (now catholic) back to Christ.
Point 1: No, I would say that a ruthless God used the life of a sentient being to advance his cause. He created her to die for his “plan.” I cannot and will not believe in a God like that. As is usual, I’m told that I just don’t understand the plan (No one does even if there were such a thing). Well, if things like this or the eight-year-old dying in PA, are included in that plan, the I reject the planner.

Point 2: Rape is a horrid crime that the Christian God knew would happen and did nothing about. Why not just make the woman a natural counselor? A good deal less ghastly, so no, her rape was not worth it.

Point 3: The Christian God is omniscient. He wouldn’t have to change anything if he would get it right in the first place. Free will would be a moot point because the world would be Utopian. Free will is used by the various religions in an attempt to explain how a loving, caring, all-knowing, all-seeing and ever present God could allow such absolute horrors. As a deist, I believe in no plan, so I assign no guilt or praise to god…whatever form that takes.

Point 4: I would contend that people have convinced themselves that they are looking at life through heaven’s eyes, but the aren’t. The are viewing the world through a system of indoctrination that for most began before they could speak.

Point 5: I find the shroud interesting because no one has affirmatively shown how it was made. I tend to go with forgery because the image is not that of a middle eastern Jew at the time of Christ.My studies were of Church documents and the Bible in a sincere effort to strengthen my Catholic faith. When I arrived at creation and the notion of plans, etc., the wheels began to fall off. Things simply don’t match up for me.

I thank you for your time, but something is going to have to occur that somehow shows me that the standard account is fact. Personally, I doubt that because reason and logic are against it, and I refuse to believe in an “enemy god.”

John
 
" My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense. "
My experience was essentially the polar opposite of yours, and I always accepted reality. In trying to strengthen my faith, I found it to be fatally flawed.

John
 
Point 1: No, I would say that a ruthless God used the life of a sentient being to advance his cause. He created her to die for his “plan.” I cannot and will not believe in a God like that. As is usual, I’m told that I just don’t understand the plan (No one does even if there were such a thing). Well, if things like this or the eight-year-old dying in PA, are included in that plan, the I reject the planner.

Point 2: Rape is a horrid crime that the Christian God knew would happen and did nothing about. Why not just make the woman a natural counselor? A good deal less ghastly, so no, her rape was not worth it.

Point 3: The Christian God is omniscient. He wouldn’t have to change anything if he would get it right in the first place. Free will would be a moot point because the world would be Utopian. Free will is used by the various religions in an attempt to explain how a loving, caring, all-knowing, all-seeing and ever present God could allow such absolute horrors. As a deist, I believe in no plan, so I assign no guilt or praise to god…whatever form that takes.

Point 4: I would contend that people have convinced themselves that they are looking at life through heaven’s eyes, but the aren’t. The are viewing the world through a system of indoctrination that for most began before they could speak.

Point 5: I find the shroud interesting because no one has affirmatively shown how it was made. I tend to go with forgery because the image is not that of a middle eastern Jew at the time of Christ.My studies were of Church documents and the Bible in a sincere effort to strengthen my Catholic faith. When I arrived at creation and the notion of plans, etc., the wheels began to fall off. Things simply don’t match up for me.

I thank you for your time, but something is going to have to occur that somehow shows me that the standard account is fact. Personally, I doubt that because reason and logic are against it, and I refuse to believe in an “enemy god.”

John
Point 2: Would a natural counselor have the same empathy and warmth and understanding that someone who went through this horrible ordeal have John?
When I was in my early twenties I was extremely depressed and suicidal, the only thing that kept me from going all the way is my Faith in God, but because of my ordeal im better able to be there for people that are suicidal now, in a way that no naturally empathetic person ever could be, because I have the experience of the ordeal, you just cant beat that. Again your looking at life through earthly eyes John.

It sounds to me like every time something bad happens you want God to just prevent it all.
This reminds me of a movie I saw once.
Bruce Almighty in which Bruce was ticked off at God for not answering his prayers, so God came down and gave him his powers for a while. Bruce promptly answered everyones prayers and soon the whole world was a mess. When things got out of hand, he turned to God and said “I dont understand what went wrong, all I did was give them exactly what they wanted” God smiled and said “since when do people really want what Good for them”

Point 5 how do you figure that the image is not the image of a middle eastern Jew, when experts have looked at the image and determined that it is. It fit the match in many ways.
The sudarium of oveido matched up perfectly in blood stains with the shroud of turin head image right down to the nose length which is 8 centimeters.
If you say that the shroud image doesnt look like that of a middle eastern Jew then you havent really studied the shroud much. Remember when that history show came out called the face of Jesus when a digital artist made out what Jesus’s face would look like from the shroud image? Well after I saw that it looked like many levantine middle eastern people that I know. That face could have faced for Jewish, palestinian, Jordanian or syrian.
You really need to study the shroud more. Here is a great resource blog site that will help.
theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/

Numerous orthodox Jews who have studied the shroud and believe in its authenticity never said that it doesnt look like a middle eastern Jew, in fact they said the opposite.
Barrie Schwortze who is an orthodox jew and member of the Sturp team in fact

Point 3: you cant have love without free will. Love is a choice.If God automically created a society where People will not have the choice to do good or bad then they are basically robots and they cant possible love. What kind of world would that be?
Sounds to me like you (a human being in a finite existence) disagree with the way God is running things and that you believe that you can do it better.
Does it make sense that a person who is living in this realm who cant see things unfolding instantly can do it better then an all powerful, all Knowing God that can see things unfolding past, present and future in front of them ? That is a bold assumption John 🙂
How do you know that all of this wasnt all part of God’s plan in the first plan

Point4: please prove this to me? This seems to me like an assertion that you cant prove.
Do you believe that rape is wrong? If so how can you even believe its wrong if you believe that morals are nothing but indoctrinations. IF you dont believe in objective moral standards then rape is no different then me eating an ice cream sandwich on a Saturday.

Point 1. You need to realize that the girl didnt really die in the true sense of the word death. Im sure that girl is in heaven with God right now. If shes in heaven right now with God then wpuldnt you say that she is in a much better place then you or me? I dont know about you John, but ill take heaven with God over this existence any day of teh week and twice on sundays. This is what I mean by looking at life through heaven’s eyes. Your looking at the short term pain while avoiding the long term eternal Love
 
Point 1. You need to realize that the girl didnt really die in the true sense of the word death. Im sure that girl is in heaven with God right now. If shes in heaven right now with God then wpuldnt you say that she is in a much better place then you or me? I dont know about you John, but ill take heaven with God over this existence any day of teh week and twice on sundays. This is what I mean by looking at life through heaven’s eyes. Your looking at the short term pain while avoiding the long term eternal Love
Some believe she’s in heaven based purely on faith. What if she decided to blow off Mass the Sunday before she was shot and didn’t get to confession? Sorry, she loses…she died with an unconfessed mortal sin on her soul and will spend eternity in hell. Of course, the Christian God knew that in advance.
What about the little girl in PA suffering horribly with a rare form of cancer while people pray for a miracle that isn’t going to come? What about…and so on. These are not the acts of a loving deity. These are the acts of a serial killer. Sounds like something man would do.
I think anyone would take heaven over this world, Question is, why all the jumping through hoops to prove our worthiness? Is it for control? It seems sadistic to me now and I can’t believe in that kind of god. It seems to me that such irrational acts could only be imagined by man.
God may be out there…I honestly don’t know, but he has no plan and does not interfere in our regular lives. We are a part of creation and are on our own here. I am here because of my parents and I will die when my body gives out or someone kills me.

I know that it is hard for many to understand a non-interventionist god, but that’s what the evidence shows. God may have started creation and has been observing ever since…It’s possible.

Be well,

John
 
Some believe she’s in heaven based purely on faith. What if she decided to blow off Mass the Sunday before she was shot and didn’t get to confession? Sorry, she loses…she died with an unconfessed mortal sin on her soul and will spend eternity in hell. Of course, the Christian God knew that in advance.
What about the little girl in PA suffering horribly with a rare form of cancer while people pray for a miracle that isn’t going to come? What about…and so on. These are not the acts of a loving deity. These are the acts of a serial killer. Sounds like something man would do.
“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word “love”, and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest “well pleased”.”
I think anyone would take heaven over this world, Question is, why all the jumping through hoops to prove our worthiness? Is it for control? It seems sadistic to me now and I can’t believe in that kind of god. It seems to me that such irrational acts could only be imagined by man.
“We are, not metaphorically but in very truth, a Divine work of art, something that God is making, and therefore something with which He will not be satisfied until it has a certain character. Here again we come up against what I have called the “intolerable compliment.” Over a sketch made idly to amuse a child, an artist may not take much trouble: he may be content to let it go even though it is not exactly as he meant it to be. But over the great picture of his life—the work which he loves, though in a different fashion, as intensely as a man loves a woman or a mother a child—he will take endless trouble—and would doubtless, thereby give endless trouble to the picture if it were sentient. One can imagine a sentient picture, after being rubbed and scraped and re-commenced for the tenth time, wishing that it were only a thumb-nail sketch whose making was over in a minute. In the same way, it is natural for us to wish that God had designed for us a less glorious and less arduous destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but for less.”
God may be out there…I honestly don’t know, but he has no plan and does not interfere in our regular lives. We are a part of creation and are on our own here. I am here because of my parents and I will die when my body gives out or someone kills me.
Lel.

Surely, if reality was not guided by God, then we would not have evolved minds geared toward truth, only survival. In that case, where do you get off making blanket statements about the nature of creation?
I know that it is hard for many to understand a non-interventionist god, but that’s what the evidence shows. God may have started creation and has been observing ever since…It’s possible.
A non-interventionist God may make less sense than no God at all, because we cannot attribute a realistic motivation for doing anything to a God like that outside of “He just wants to watch”.
 
“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word “love”, and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest “well pleased”.”

“We are, not metaphorically but in very truth, a Divine work of art, something that God is making, and therefore something with which He will not be satisfied until it has a certain character. Here again we come up against what I have called the “intolerable compliment.” Over a sketch made idly to amuse a child, an artist may not take much trouble: he may be content to let it go even though it is not exactly as he meant it to be. But over the great picture of his life—the work which he loves, though in a different fashion, as intensely as a man loves a woman or a mother a child—he will take endless trouble—and would doubtless, thereby give endless trouble to the picture if it were sentient. One can imagine a sentient picture, after being rubbed and scraped and re-commenced for the tenth time, wishing that it were only a thumb-nail sketch whose making was over in a minute. In the same way, it is natural for us to wish that God had designed for us a less glorious and less arduous destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but for less.”

Lel.

Surely, if reality was not guided by God, then we would not have evolved minds geared toward truth, only survival. In that case, where do you get off making blanket statements about the nature of creation?

A non-interventionist God may make less sense than no God at all, because we cannot attribute a realistic motivation for doing anything to a God like that outside of “He just wants to watch”.
As is often the case in these discussions, we have reached an impasse. All we can do is state things that the other does not believe. Obviously, my take on the world varies greatly from yours and I think that reality aligns better with my beliefs.
You feel the same way.
Your next to last paragraph I disagree with wholeheartedly. There is no indication that humans need a faith system in order to be moral. Human morals have developed out of necessity and self-interest. Very few humans truly enjoy chaos.

So far as a non-interventionist god, he may well have started creation (s) out of curiosity and nothing more. After all, time is not an issue.

I don’t ask anyone to believe as I do. I’m just presenting an alternative viewpoint that I find has given me peace that I could never find in my previous faith.
 
humble_catholic # 81 👍

An additional thought about the 1`7yr old girl at the school hostage/ shooting. As I recall - the gunman asked her if she believed in God – she had to corrage to say Yes. Christ Died for our sins – why shouldn’t we be willing to take a Stand for our belief in Him.
 
Title of thread: "Creator and operator of the universe, what’s wrong with this concept of God?"

This question is addressed to any person at all, but in particular to atheists.

KingCoil
I think that the problem with this concept of God is that it takes a mechanistic view of the world around us, and applies it to the process of creation and the evolution of the cosmos. Humans make machines, and we have over time applied the context of machines to the natural world because that is one of the lenses through which we view the world, and as tool-makers it is one of the means by which we operate. The natural world, however, is not a machine. The natural world doesn’t stop when it runs into a problem with the program or when a part wears out. The natural world heals and devises workarounds. The natural world doesn’t seem to require an overseeing attendant to keep it in operation. The natural world learns, grows, creates, destroys, heals itself and expresses itself by making new from the old. Machines do not do that.
 
Your next to last paragraph I disagree with wholeheartedly. There is no indication that humans need a faith system in order to be moral. Human morals have developed out of necessity and self-interest. Very few humans truly enjoy chaos.
The thrust of that comment was to point out that if God did not and does not take an interest in our development, we are not evolved towards truth but survival. We do not have the ability to make universal truth statements about reality or the nature of creation, because we are a subjective existence. Unless we are enabled by some divine grace or action to actually see truth and understand it instead of relativity.

Moral statements can be universal truth statements - because we are asserting that something is intrinsically good or evil. Unless that moral system is based on some other principle, such as self-interest in which case they wouldn’t be universal truth statements about morality and as such are not better than any other moral system that you can compare it to.

But I was not commenting on morality. I was commenting about our ability to perceive truth, which we do not have unless enabled to do so by God.
 
Title of thread: "Creator and operator of the universe, what’s wrong with this concept of God?"
One slight objection that one might raise is that God is not essentially creator and operator of the universe but, instead, essentially creator and operator of everything that is not-God. His creating the universe was contingent (he might have created a different universe), so creator-of-this-universe is not a property of God, strictly speaking. It is a “Cambridge property.”

I think that taking creator as the basic characterization of God is not bad. From there one could reason through divine simplicity and the other attributes follow.
 
The thrust of that comment was to point out that if God did not and does not take an interest in our development, we are not evolved towards truth but survival. We do not have the ability to make universal truth statements about reality or the nature of creation, because we are a subjective existence. Unless we are enabled by some divine grace or action to actually see truth and understand it instead of relativity.

Moral statements can be universal truth statements - because we are asserting that something is intrinsically good or evil. Unless that moral system is based on some other principle, such as self-interest in which case they wouldn’t be universal truth statements about morality and as such are not better than any other moral system that you can compare it to.
👍 Morality based on self-interest is expediency.
 
humble_catholic # 81 👍

An additional thought about the 1`7yr old girl at the school hostage/ shooting. As I recall - the gunman asked her if she believed in God – she had to corrage to say Yes. Christ Died for our sins – why shouldn’t we be willing to take a Stand for our belief in Him.
Wow Crochet Lady I didn’t know she was asked this. I’m sure her reward is great in heaven 🙂
I hope that I have a tenth of the courage this girl had.
Old Celt is still looking at this from a finite position. For me when Christ came and died for my sins it was the ultimate act of love, but it’s not just quality of eternal life that is important, but more important the quantity to spend eternal life with god who loves me eternally.
 
Sejnsucht #89

And what if that young lady was Not relying on a ‘good work’ of being in Mass the previous week, to ensure that if a ‘what if’ Did happen to her she wouldn’t ‘by accident’ end up in hell.

Because a person’s ‘good work’ does Not keep a person ‘out of’ or ’ put them into’ heaven or hell. A person’s relationship to God through Jesus Christ’s shed blood Does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top