Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[Sunmaster]

47 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

It's not up to me to find evidence for someone else's claims.

 

No getting around that pesky burden of proof thing.

 

And not getting around of me not caring to provide you with proof of your own existence. 

[fusion58]

41 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

And not getting around of me not caring to provide you with proof of your own existence. 

 

Straw man.

 

Your burden isn't to provide me with proof of my existence; your burden is to prove the existence of an incorporeal "self."

[Sunmaster]

59 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

Straw man.

 

Your burden isn't to provide me with proof of my existence; your burden is to prove the existence of an incorporeal "self."

This is funny. 🤣🤣

First of all, I don't have the burden to provide you or anyone with jack sht. Maybe you confuse me with someone who believes in a Godman sitting on a cloud. 

 

Second, are you saying you have no self? Wow! Are you a robot? An AI bot? 😂😂

Hey, prove to me that I am alive! 

 

And you say "incorporeal", as if there were a corporeal self. Where is this corporeal self? Can you point it out to me? 

[Mark Nothing]

A common theme of the Bible is punishment coming to those who depart from God.

 

Like those who worship money have to spend their whole life chasing it and taking care of all their possessions.  Most never realize they are chasing the wind.

 

Or those who worship doctors get taken to the cleaners by insurance, testing, treatments, tablets and have to live in pain with the side affects and fear.  When the Bible clearly lays out how to avoid this obstacle.

 

Other gigantic problems like natural disasters and accidents are beyond our scope of comprehension.  Maybe it makes us appreciate good times more.  Or a future gain comes from a current catastrophe that otherwise would not be possible.

[spidermike007]

Taoism: s**t happens

Buddhism: if s**t happens, it isn't really s**t

Islam: if s**t happens, it is the will of Allah

Catholicism: if s**t happens, you deserve it. 

Judaism: why does this s**t always happen to us? 

Atheism: I don't believe this s**t. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

Why are God's clergy so evil?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/7/2024 at 8:03 PM, Woof999 said:

 

You're distorting the question and I'm pretty sure you know you are.

 

Just in case you are actually confused... when an atheist writes "how come God gives babies disabilities", what they almost certainly mean is "if your God exists, and he is all good,  all knowing and all powerful, how in the world can babies be born with disabilities."

Where did anyone get the idea that God is "good" in the human sense of the word?

The Bible God is pretty mean, and bad things have happened to people since people existed, so it's a mystery to me why some have the idea that God is there to hold our hand and make life a bed of roses.

Did some person claim that God was actually a nice person, and did people believe that when the evidence is contrary? Is it wishful thinking perhaps?

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

“If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find. He should be perfectly obvious whereas in naturalism you might expect people to believe in God but the evidence to be thin on the ground.

 

Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good.

 

You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner. Under naturalism you’d expect the sacred texts to be a mishmash—some really good parts, some poetic parts, and some boring parts and mythological parts.”

 

 - Sean Carroll 

That brings us back to the old "confusing religion with God" fallacy. IMO religion as a man made construct conforms to human desires, which are all different and all about humans, and God conforms to nothing except God. We don't "know" about God because we are IMO of no more importance to God the creator of the universe and everything in it down to the smallest particle, than a microbe. God created the organisms that became both humans and microbes, and both are part of the planetary existence- neither of more importance than the other.

IMO it's only the arrogance of humans that think we are important on a cosmic scale that leads some to think God gives a <deleted> about us.

 

I admit that my opinions are probably not in accordance with the OP's concerning such.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I'm a generous guy but when Christmas forces you to be generous I have a problems with it.  And if that's all Christmas is about - getting presents - then the meaning is completely lost.

LOL. No one is forcing you to give presents- that's on you! Man up, tell everyone that you are opting out of the commercialism of Xmas by big business and greed, and don't want to receive presents and that you will not be giving any.

It worked in my case.

I like the Christmas scene though, so I did have decorations and a tree, but the "presents" under the tree were just prettily wrapped empty boxes.

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, fusion58 said:

It's not up to me to find evidence for someone else's claims.

 

No getting around that pesky burden of proof thing.

 

Proof thing?  What proof thing?  Let's consider that by going a bit deeper, shall we?

 

Your reasoning is based on a false assumption.  The assumption is that everything can be proven.  Well, yes and no.  So to clarify.  Everything can be proven but not everything can be proven by providing physical evidence.  So to restate more accurately, your reasoning is based on the false assumption that everything can be proven with physical evidence, or in physical terms.

 

Before you take offense at me for having the impudence to suggest that your assumption is wrong then consider this:

 

Now I was just chided by @pomchop for being condescending as he interpreted me "to be pretending to "understand" something that others can't grasp" and having the temerity and hubris to think my thoughts run deeper than others.  Well, in this case my thoughts do run deeper than those who think and believe that everything can be proven via physical evidence.  Those who do believe that haven't thought it through yet.  Now just because I have doesn't mean that I'm smarter, or deeper than anyone else.  Anyone can think things through if they want and come to the same conclusions and therefore come to know what I know.  It's simply stating a fact that I've thought things through on this issue whereas others have not yet.  No judgement here; just an accurate assessment of reality.

 

Perhaps the most obvious example that not everything can be proven is thoughts.  Thoughts are purely subjective and not at all objective.  Would it be possible to prove what someone is thinking via physical evidence?  Not if the thoughts don't provide any physical evidence.  "You handsum man."  How many farang have been taken to the cleaners with that line?  You could be with a Thai lady for years believing that she loves you despite the fact that she's only boning you dry and has a Thai guy on the side.  For years there may be no physical evidence of her thoughts.  But that physical evidence may come only after she's drained your bank account and left you high and dry as she skips town with her Thai true love.  Then, and only then, will you have physical evidence of her thoughts.  But never as long as she's keeping her thoughts private.

 

Here's another example of what cannot be proven.  Some people believe that life happens to you.  Some people believe the opposite; that you create your life.  Who is correct?  Now prove it.  You'll quickly find out that you cannot prove either theory to be either true or false.  Which theory is correct can only be proven by you to yourself.  And once you've proven it to yourself, whichever of the two doesn't matter, you will never be able to convince another by placing the physical evidence of proof in the palm of their hands.  And so it is with God, or what God represents.  Which is what Sunmaster was explaining.  You couldn't process what he was telling you precisely because you held a false assumption that everything can be proven in physical terms.  Once you understand that the assumption is false then, and only then, can you begin to understand what Sunmaster is explaining.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

In the restaurant there's actual food. You are talking about something in your mind that you think is a thing.  Imagine someone saying they are tasting something so yummy but there's nothing in front of them to see. You might then question, admonish, or ridicule.  So if you believe something and wish to talk about it you have to cop it as a reasonable thing to be criticised when nothing can be seen on the table. 

Did you miss the point because you chose to or do you just not get it? It was an analogy.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

Theists are always free to present any empirical evidence and/or a priori metaphysical arguments in support of their belief in a supernatural sky monarch.

 

Arguing "evidence exists - you're simply unable to see or understand it" is just a disingenuous way of conceding that you don't really have any evidence to present.

 

Before the microscope was invented people didn't believe that microbes existed and thought disease was caused by going out in the moonlight or some such nonsense ( some people still think we catch a cold by being cold, lol ), but microbes did exist.

The analogy is that you can't see the evidence because nothing has been invented to allow you to see it, but it doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist.

Some of us don't need to be able to see the evidence, because we experienced something ( that you have not experienced ) that proves to US, that it exists.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

The burden of proof rests solely on the claimant or the believer.

You make the mistake that some of us care if you believe us or not. I'll make the claim with an IMO, and whether you believe it or not is of no importance to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

 

How would consciousness constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or deity?

If you do not believe in a creator God, you must believe in an alternate reason for your existence. Do you think the universe just happened, just popped into existence for no reason at all- one minute it wasn't there and the next minute all the matter in the entire universe just existed, and came from nowhere, or do you think it was magic?

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

“If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find. He should be perfectly obvious whereas in naturalism you might expect people to believe in God but the evidence to be thin on the ground.

 

Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions.

 

Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good.

 

You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner. Under naturalism you’d expect the sacred texts to be a mishmash—some really good parts, some poetic parts, and some boring parts and mythological parts.”

 

 - Sean Carroll 

 

Sean Carroll hasn't thought things through.  And so he appeals to others who haven't thought things through.  How can I have the gall to say this?  Because the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through.  I'd point them out individually but the sheer quantity of fallacious logic makes it too time consuming.  Man, this dude makes a lot of assumptions.  It'd be a pity if they're wrong. 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, fusion58 said:

 

It sounds like you subscribe to an emergent conception of God as symbolic or otherwise representative of the self, the unity of all phenomena, etc.

 

This kind of idea suffers from the same type of epistemological problem as that of the theist, viz., it assumes the existence of an atomic and/or incorporeal "self."

 

 

You lost me there. If an atomic self does not exist, how can you and I even be here to put writing on the screen?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/7/2024 at 7:19 PM, giddyup said:

Why does god give me, grief on a platter and pleasure on a spoon?

I have given such a great deal of thought, and my conclusion is that it all comes down to "luck" or "chance". Some are born to riches and a life of luxury, while some eat <deleted> for breakfast ( some of us don't even get more than breakfast to live on ).

Is there a reason for it? IMO not. I think life is just a gamble. One could ask a gazelle if there is a reason for ending up as a lion's breakfast.

 

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. No one is forcing you to give presents- that's on you! Man up, tell everyone that you are opting out of the commercialism of Xmas by big business and greed, and don't want to receive presents and that you will not be giving any.

 

Perhaps if I were still in the west.  But moving to Thailand solved the problem permanently. 

 

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I like the Christmas scene though, so I did have decorations and a tree, but the "presents" under the tree were just prettily wrapped empty boxes.

 

I like the Christmas spirit.  And always will.  So I'll do up Christmas in my own image per what it means to me.  My family puts up a tree every year.  And we wrap colourful lights around the staircase banister.  I play Christmas music, mostly traditional, and rerun the classic Christmas movies, but never the contemporary ones that I consider do not capture the Christmas spirit, such as Bruce Willis' Die Hard.  No presents as Thais exchange them for New Years.

 

I do miss the snow.  Most of all I miss eggnog.  Anyone know where to find it during the holidays?  I may be forced to find a recipe and make my own. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I do miss the snow.  Most of all I miss eggnog.  Anyone know where to find it during the holidays?  I may be forced to find a recipe and make my own. 

My entire childhood was in warm climes so never a snowy Xmas.

I got plenty of snow as an adult when I took up skiing though, often on my face when I fell over, and lots and lots of it in Antarctica.

 

Google is your friend.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you miss the point because you chose to or do you just not get it? It was an analogy.

For what it's worth, I took the point of the post as noting the pointlessness of consumers at a restaurant, or the religious, debating and admonishing each other about what is the best food, or religious ideals, to consume. Since it is all food or all religion so let individual choice reign. Pineapple pizza or a Napoli pizza with traditional ingredients. It's all good. 

 

My point then noted  that to the non religious, it is not comparing different foods, but food and an empty table. The religious sit at an objectively empty table and say they are, if you like, having a satisfying meal that only they can see.   Or maybe others of a similar ilk feel they can see and may well see who knows. 

 

Of course I concur the religious should not be admonished or ridiculed or similar.  But if they stand up and say, take my word that this is a thing, or do these 5000 hours of meditation or read a 5000 page book and you'll see it's a thing, it is not unreasonable that they get some hopefully polite debate and or pushback, about whether it is a thing, or that they could provide evidence that doing the hard work leads to a thing.  

 

Edited January 8 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, sipi said:

Why does God have a beard?

 

Why are you, presumably, clean shaven?  Ask a silly question and get a silly answer. 

 

Since a lot of folks here share the sentiment that it's perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people for holding ideas that they deem are pure fantasy then shouldn't it also be perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people who act silly?  Fair is fair, right? 

 

A serious answer, though, would be that God is an idea and because it appears to be human nature to personify everything then God was given a human image.  And since that was done a couple of thousand years ago when razors weren't in prolific use they pasted a beard on him to make his image match their own.

 

God was seen as cruel and powerful when man believed that these were desirable characteristics, needed particularly in his battle for physical survival. He projected these upon his idea of a god because he envied them and feared them. You have cast your idea of god, therefore, in your own image.

 

Edited January 8 by Tippaporn

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

My point then noted  that to the non religious, it is not comparing different foods, but food and an empty table.

I ask you then, is "love" real, or an illusion, a nothingness that we imagine?

 

We idolise "love", write songs about it, write about it, dream of being "in love", dream of being "loved". Yet love can't be seen, smelt or touched.

 

So, is "love" as real as food, or is it an empty table?

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you miss the point because you chose to or do you just not get it? It was an analogy.

For wat it's worth, I took the point of the post as noting the pointlessness of consumers at a restaurant, or the religious, debating and admonishing each other about what is the best food, or religious ideals, to consume. Since it is all food or all religion so let individual choice reign. Pineapple pizza or a Napoli pizza with traditional ingredients. It's all good. 

 

My point then noted  that to the non religious, it is not comparing different foods, but food and an empty table. The religious sit at an objectively empty table and say they are, if you like, having a satisfying meal that only they can see.   Or maybe others of a similar ilk feel they can see and may well see who knows. 

 

Of course I concur the religious should not be admonished or ridiculed or similar.  But if they stand up and say, take my word that this is a thing or do these 5000 hours of meditation and you'll see it's a thing, it is not unreasonable that they get some hopefully polite debate and or pushback, about whether it is a thing, or evidence that doing the hard work leads to a thing.  

 

The analogy was meant only to highlight the obvious fact that people can't seem to get their noses out of what others are choosing for themselves.  Only in the setting of a restaurant do people busy themselves only with what choices they want to make and freely allow others to make their own choices and pay them no mind.

 

The analogy was given to illustrate the issue that non-believers insert themselves into the God thread conversation with no intention whatsoever of understanding anything other than what they understand and so their only purpose is to admonish and ridicule.  Put succinctly, they only troll.  They stick their noses into what others are choosing, no different than a religious fanatic sticking his nose into what you're choosing for yourself.  You don't like it when it happens.  And vice versa.

 

Perhaps I did a poor job in my initial response to you but your editing of my analogy to include other diners coming to you to entice you to try their food, even if non-existent (insert bolded portion of your quote), and therefore they deserve pushback, doesn't work then.

 

Does that make it clear?  I'm asking respectfully, not snidely. 

 

Edited January 8 by Tippaporn

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I ask you then, is "love" real, or an illusion, a nothingness that we imagine?

 

We idolise "love", write songs about it, write about it, dream of being "in love", dream of being "loved". Yet love can't be seen, smelt or touched.

 

So, is "love" as real as food, or is it an empty table?

I don't think love is evidence of a god. We all feel stuff. Some feelings can seem minor, and seemingly inconsequential, such as the good feeling of eating food - important though to my survival. Other feelings can seem overwhelming or bigger than others but are still feelings and they do not necessitate belief in a god or similar. No feelings or thoughts or ideas can be touched.  

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I ask you then, is "love" real, or an illusion, a nothingness that we imagine?

 

We idolise "love", write songs about it, write about it, dream of being "in love", dream of being "loved". Yet love can't be seen, smelt or touched.

 

So, is "love" as real as food, or is it an empty table?

PS, too late to edit that, but it should have been smelled, not smelt, which is something else entirely.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't think love is evidence of a god. We all feel stuff. Some feelings can seem minor, and seemingly inconsequential, such as the good feeling of eating food - important though to my survival. Other feelings can seem overwhelming or bigger than others but are still feelings and they do not necessitate belief in a god or similar. No feelings or thoughts or ideas can be touched.  

I never said love is evidence of anything else.

I was saying that if one disregards God because God can't be seen or proven, then one has to say that "love" does not exist either.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't think love is evidence of a god.

 

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said love is evidence of anything else.

I was saying that if one disregards God because God can't be seen or proven, then one has to say that "love" does not exist either.

Your definition of love must be some universal thing. Could be strong feelings and that's it. You could go one further and say humans in love feel good, sometimes, and act a certain way that tends to be consistent with a positive outcomes for the community and therefore is held in high regard ...  as compared to negative feelings that have bad outcomes or something. 

[Tippaporn]

47 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

52 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't think love is evidence of a god.

 

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from. 

 

I decided to quote myself along with yours because later edits have a tendency to get overlooked.

 

Due to my defending God folks may interpret that erroneously and see me as a religious type.  I am not.  In fact I was raised a Catholic and it didn't take me long to see the many distortions of that religion.  Whilst I do not believe in a God as he is depicted in religion I do, however, subscribe to the idea of God as a representation of something else.  What that representation is is what I endeavour to find out for myself in this life.  That's my personal intention and I understand full well, and more than anyone could imagine, that everyone in this world is here with their own intentions.  That fact is simple reality.  I have no issue whatsoever with it.  In fact I even understand the why of why everyone has their own intentions.

 

I'm here in defence of other people's belief in the existence of a religious God for a few reasons.  One of which is that people have this idea that everything they believe to be true is indeed true.  Granted they are not quite so firm in believing that all of their beliefs are true.  After all, people do change their beliefs from time to time.  But the general idea they subscribe to is quite strong nonetheless.  Since I am aware that many of the ideas which people subscribe to and hold to be true are not true at all then I will be more than happy to point out where their ideas fail and why.

 

Now I don't do this for the purpose of lecturing others, or to put myself on any kind of pedestal thereby raising myself above the heads of others, but only because I enjoy pushing poor and unhealthy ideas.  Such as boys can be girls and girls can be boys and men can menstruate and get pregnant.  Those are examples of poor and unhealthy ideas which are being promulgated extensively these days.

 

I enjoy most of all to get people to think beyond their current thinking and take it to another level.  Would anyone object to that? 

 

Here's a rich, healthy and true idea of which many are unaware: People are not their ideas.  People only subscribe to and hold them as their own.

 

Edited January 8 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your definition of love must be some universal thing. Could be strong feelings and that's it. You could go one further and say humans in love feel good, sometimes, and act a certain way that tends to be consistent with a positive outcomes for the community and therefore is held in high regard ...  as compared to negative feelings that have bad outcomes or something. 

 

I would be so bold as to make this statement.  We could not exist or survive in this world or any other without love.  Love is the inherent basis of existence.  To understand that statement does requires some thinking about it.  Probably a whole lot of thinking.  And it's true to say it requires more thinking than most would want to devote to it.  Not a problem.  Everyone has their own thing in this world.  Not everyone has a great interest in understanding that statement.  But, no workie, no rewardie. 

 

Also, it's not just humans who experience the emotion of love.  Ever have a pet? 

 

Wouldn't that be 'evidence' that love is a universal thing?