rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/27/84)
> You do not know God. Why do you think you have a better idea of His actual > character than those of us who have met Him? Since I don't believe that god exists, it is irrelevant for me to discuss my notions of what its character might be, isn't it? Without belaboring old points, you claim to have had personal communion with the entity that you claim is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the universe. I claim that this is just your belief based on preconception and wishful thinking (e.g., in communing with yourself you found something you couldn't believe to be a part of yourself so, based on your preconceptions and wishful thinking about what a deity should be like, you claim that what you found was god). I would think that the latter example is more believable, more plausible than the former. >> Our being imperfect doesn't imply that there *is* something more perfect. >> That's nothing (nothing) but wishful thinking. > Then where did we get the idea of "perfect"? If imperfection was all that > existed, how could we possibly form any concept of perfection? It's called an abstraction, Jeff. Just because humans conceive of notions like perfection, justice, etc., doesn't mean they exist. We can conceive of tesseracts and imaginary numbers and more, but they are just concepts formed in the human brain, which may or may not be used to describe elements of reality. Could you please elaborate on why perfection must exist because the human brain can conceive of it? (Your logic seems to imply the reverse---that the human brain can only conceive of it because it exists.) > I think the > wishful thinking is on your side; you don't want there to be a God, since He > would change your life in ways you might not want. I'm really ambivalent about whether there is a deity or not. But frankly I don't care. If one does exist, and it's of the form that many choose to believe---one that destroys those who deny it and fail to worship it--well, I'm screwed, aren't I? But then aren't we all? Who would expect such an entity to keep to its word in any case regarding ultimate rewards/punishment? Piss it off for the slightest reason and you're elephant breakfast. If one does exist, and it is benevolent as you describe it to be, why would it make any difference to it how I led my life (beyond not hurting or interfering in the lives of other people, if anything at all)---whether I quoted from "his" book to live my life or thought out my life rationally with equivalent (maybe better) results. Thus whether or not a deity exists has little bearing on the way I lead my life. > Sometimes I feel the same > way about Him, even now. But what else is there? Based on the evidence, I have no reason to believe that there's anything "there" at all. This doesn't make me feel empty, or without purpose, or any of those things, as many would assume. I have realized that whether or not there is anything "there" I still have my life to live and I must define how I am going to live it, in a world with other people doing the same thing (hopefully). >>> God has feelings, too. >> Isn't that just as anthropocentric as given god (virtual) genitals? >> (... and a beard) > God wants us to know Him as best we can, so He manifests Himself in ways that > we can understand, culminating in becoming a man Himself, complete with real > genitals and beard. His appearance in visions with beard (e.g. Daniel 7) was > just to render Himself comprehensible to His audience. Finally, we are made > in His image; as it were, we are statues of Him. Thus our characteristics > (except sinfulness) are a dim indication of His, not to mention the fact that > He Himself is represented numerous times in the Bible as having emotions; so, > to the best of our understanding of Him, God does have feelings. Or could it be the other way around? Could it be that those who conceived of the notion of god (see above for description of how something that doesn't exist can be conceived of) imposed their preconceptions and anthropomorphic ideas onto their notion of a deity? By the way, if we are made in the image of god, and we are "sinful", then why isn't god sinful? (Calling it a logical contradiction doesn't hold water; it's like saying the news as offered in the book 1984 is wrong: it can't be because the content of the news is defined as correct!) The point is not to show that god is "sinful" (whatever that is), but to pinpoint the inconsistencies in many views purported by religions to be the "true nature of god". (Cornrowed chest hair?????) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr