The 'New' Number One Reason We Know there is No God . . . :D

[Danmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... traditions lists a very length assemblage of religions and cultures. I submit it is woefully incomplete. It is a fair assumption that the only ones that made it on the list are one's we have historical references to. This assertion is self defining. We can assume there were/are thousands more we are not aware of.

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

[cnorman18]

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

Well, to begin with I would suggest that my version of "God" is correct simply because I don't attempt to put God in a box or define God in any specific way that can be pinned down to a technical dogma. And this is especially true in terms of claiming that "I know what God wants" whilst other people supposedly don't. I don't hold that position.

Secondly, I wouldn't say that all other religions or spiritual views of "God" are wrong. And therefore it's not a matter of saying "I'm right and someone else is wrong".

Having said this I do reject religions that do put God in a box and claim to know precisely what God wants (as you well know).

It's remarkable -- as much as we argue, I am 100% in agreement on all of that, and on much of what follows.

I don't see the existence of false religions as proof that there cannot be a God in general.

Of course. It doesn't logically follow. The nonexistence of unicorns does not prove that there are no such things as horses.

Especially when my view of "God" is of a God who has absolutely no reason to care whether we believe in God or not.

Another Jewish idea. "Belief" is of little, if any, importance in Judaism. Though that explicit idea is a rather modern one, "belief" was never so much a matter of "dogma" in the Judaism of the past, but something that was simply taken for granted. Background noise, as it were.

What question could there be of "belief" or "faith" in the Bible stories, when God was manifestly acting, concretely and openly, right in front of the people's faces? One doesn't see people wondering about "belief" in witches, elves or trolls in fairy tales, either; they were just THERE, just as God is THERE in the stories of the Bible.

Literature. Not History.

If a God doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, then why would it care about religions?

Another rather Jewish attitude. We don't claim that other religions are false -- we have no warrant for THAT. We say only that this is OUR way of expressing the religious impulse, not that it is the only one.

It would have no reason to intervene in anything that humans might do or dream up.

Well, that doesn't logically follow either -- God might wish to intervene in areas that have nothing to do with "religion" -- but I would agree that God doesn't, at least in any provable or demonstrable way, intervene. I doubt that he ever did.

But I do feel that your observations should be highly problematic for those who believe in a "God in a Box" where their dogma defines God very rigidly in terms of what God wants, and all other dogmas are then necessarily false. That seems to be highly problematic to me.

Agreed, 100%.

I think this is especially true in the Abrahamic religions...

Ahhh, here we go:

...which are clearly at odds with each other yet they are all based on fables of the same God. The major factions of Christianity and Islam demand that God has very specific commandments and demands of humans, yet they are in grave opposition to precisely what these commands are.

It seems that the Jews often argue that their view of the scriptures is quite different. But considering that the whole shebang is founded on the Ten Commandments that this God supposedly gave to humans including "Worship me! Worship me! Worship me! Worship me!" as the first four of these commandments, it's really hard to see where any Jew can justify claiming that Judaism isn't about a God who is making very specific demands.

The difficulty is that you won't, or can't, accept the FACT that we Jews consider all those "commands," and the Scripture itself in which they appear, as our literary and cultural heritage, and not as a currently valid and obligatory list of specific demands of God.

That idea may be where our religion began, but it is no longer bound to that approach, and hasn't been since long before Jesus's day (hence the pluralism and different approaches of different groups of Jews, even then). Some of those old precepts we still honor; others we have discarded or modified. Which to keep, which to change, and which to abolish is, and always was, determined by US, and not by God or Scripture. That is not our license, or privilege; it is our responsibility and our job. The principle is very old, and is explicitly taught in the Talmud.

In my religion God makes absolutely no demands at all. Period.

In my religion, God DOES care about our behavior toward each other and the world around us, and expects (I don't know that "demands" is quite the word) that we humans take that responsibility seriously; but the task of determining what those responsiblities (or "demands," if you like) specifically ARE is up to US, and that responsibility is NOT to be facilely and passively palmed off onto an old book or any set of carved-in-stone (Moses notwithstanding) set of dogmas or rules. We are expected to THINK and ARGUE and REASON our way to an understanding of what our responsibilities are, and that is to be revisited and reexamined in every generation.

This tradition, as we call it, is not an ancient dead thing that is fossilized and unchanging; it is a living, continuous process that began long before the redaction of the Bible documents, which are themselves the products of the collation and collection of acknowledged differences and disagreements, and has continued in an unbroken process ever since. I realize that you think we should just shred all of our literature, all our traditions, and all of our past discussions and debates on these subjects, starting with the Bible, and just carry on without reference to any of it; but that is not our way, and our way has worked pretty well for a very, very long time.

Again; if what you know about the modern Jewish religion is primarily drawn from the views and accounts of first-century Christians, as you have so often demonstrated -- well, you need to learn a bit more about it. It is very, very far from what you have repeatedly shown that you assume it to be.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 11 by cnorman18]

The difficulty is that you won't, or can't, accept the FACT that we Jews consider all those "commands," and the Scripture itself in which they appear, as our literary and cultural heritage, and not as a currently valid and obligatory list of specific demands of God.

That idea may be where our religion began, but it is no longer bound to that approach, and hasn't been since long before Jesus's day ....
....
We are expected to THINK and ARGUE and REASON our way to an understanding of what our responsibilities are, and that is to be revisited and reexamined in every generation.

I find this discussion fascinating, and in no small part because it is between two whom I respect and frequently agree with. As Charles explains this Jewish tradition, where as I understand it can embrace atheism, and yet he defends the cultural tradition that DI objects to when it shows a vengeful or hateful God, there is certainly a tension between those points of view. IF I remotely understand it, it has to do with the fact that this image of this God is part of the literature as opposed to some literal, absolute factual description that some of our Christian brethren believe in.

I try to make peace in my own mind between these competing notions. All I can think of is that yes, these stories and this literature that attempts to understand God, should not be taken as literal, actual events, but that there is an important truth or truths that underlie these very human attempts to portray them.

One thing I believe most definitely is that the God that people attempt to describe is, if he exists at all, very different from our human attempts to describe or understand him. To attempt to paraphrase Charles, the literature presents various arguments about who and what God might be; it is not definitive. Perhaps it would be blasphemy to say otherwise.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 11 by cnorman18]

The difficulty is that you won't, or can't, accept the FACT that we Jews consider all those "commands," and the Scripture itself in which they appear, as our literary and cultural heritage, and not as a currently valid and obligatory list of specific demands of God.

That idea may be where our religion began, but it is no longer bound to that approach, and hasn't been since long before Jesus's day ....
....
We are expected to THINK and ARGUE and REASON our way to an understanding of what our responsibilities are, and that is to be revisited and reexamined in every generation.

I find this discussion fascinating, and in no small part because it is between two whom I respect and frequently agree with. As Charles explains this Jewish tradition, where as I understand it can embrace atheism, and yet he defends the cultural tradition that DI objects to when it shows a vengeful or hateful God, there is certainly a tension between those points of view. IF I remotely understand it, it has to do with the fact that this image of this God is part of the literature as opposed to some literal, absolute factual description that some of our Christian brethren believe in.

I try to make peace in my own mind between these competing notions. All I can think of is that yes, these stories and this literature that attempts to understand God, should not be taken as literal, actual events, but that there is an important truth or truths that underlie these very human attempts to portray them.

One thing I believe most definitely is that the God that people attempt to describe is, if he exists at all, very different from our human attempts to describe or understand him. To attempt to paraphrase Charles, the literature presents various arguments about who and what God might be; it is not definitive. Perhaps it would be blasphemy to say otherwise.

Precisely right. Some of the rabbis of old, as well as those of our own day, regarded any attempt to define God as a form of idolatry -- the making of a mental image, if you will; a human construct that is then worshiped as God. The Biblical metaphors themselves seem to indicate this -- no man can see God's face and live, he refuses to give his true name, he is hidden in smoke and flame, and so on. A rabbi once agreed when I told him that this was the significance, in the story, of our hearing his voice at Sinai, but not seeing who (or what) spoke. Ein Sof -- the Wholly Other.

[Divine Insight]

Dear Charles,

I actually suspected that you might chime in when I was writing my thoughts on Judaism above. I almost hate to mention Judaism anymore in the fear that I might rile you up.

But I can't help but ask how you can you take the stance that for Jews Judaism is just heritage literature when it's based upon the Ten Commandments that God supposedly gave to Moses, and that the first Four of those Commandments are commandments to worship this God?

They don't call these "The Ten Suggestions". And even if they did, it's still suggestions being made by a God about how he is supposed to be worshiped.

How in the world do you dismiss this as not being about a God who is telling people how to behave and how they should worship the God?

[Zzyzx]

.
IF some sort of superhuman entity (or "god" or whatever) exists it is likely to be beyond our comprehension " regardless what ancients wrote or preachers claim. We cannot comprehend the thinking of the greatest human minds " let alone something infinitely greater (if it exists).

False claims of knowledge are divisive. Mutual agreement that we don't know is unifying.

[Danmark]

Precisely right. Some of the rabbis of old, as well as those of our own day, regarded any attempt to define God as a form of idolatry -- the making of a mental image, if you will; a human construct that is then worshiped as God. The Biblical metaphors themselves seem to indicate this -- no man can see God's face and live, he refuses to give his true name, he is hidden in smoke and flame, and so on. A rabbi once agreed when I told him that this was the significance, in the story, of our hearing his voice at Sinai, but not seeing who (or what) spoke. Ein Sof -- the Wholly Other.

Even when I was a fully 'true believing' evangelical Christian I could not understand why most Christians did not get this. Exactly! This Bible worship and "Jehovah worship" always struck me as idolatry. The single most profound and impressive passage in the Bible is "I AM." There is more theology in those two words than in thousands of books on the subject. Yet so many misunderstand the subtle profundity of the phrase.

Maybe religion is like an old aphorism about chess: Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe.

[Divine Insight]

.
IF some sort of superhuman entity (or "god" or whatever) exists it is likely to be beyond our comprehension " regardless what ancients wrote or preachers claim. We cannot comprehend the thinking of the greatest human minds " let alone something infinitely greater (if it exists).

False claims of knowledge are divisive. Mutual agreement that we don't know is unifying.

I agree. If were would all confess to being agnostics on the question of the truth of reality and God, etc. We'd all be far better off.

Where the term agnostic simple means what the very root of the word mean, "a - gnostic" (i.e. without knowledge sufficient to answer the question at hand)

I confess that I'm agnostic.

I'm just waiting for the rest of the world to come around.

[Haven]

I agree. If were would all confess to being agnostics on the question of the truth of reality and God, etc. We'd all be far better off.

Where the term agnostic simple means what the very root of the word mean, "a - gnostic" (i.e. without knowledge sufficient to answer the question at hand)

I confess that I'm agnostic.

I'm just waiting for the rest of the world to come around.

I am also agnostic (I don't claim certain knowledge of whether god/gods -- whatever that may mean -- exist), but I go further and take the position of agnostic and ignostic atheism. I don't know whether or not god/gods/etc. exist or what god/gods/etc. are (especially the "wholly other" unknowable god(s) posited by some) but I lack belief in them due to insufficient evidence for their existence and the incoherence or inscrutability of all god concepts yet put to me.

In other words, gods aren't one of the things I believe exist.

[Divine Insight]

I agree. If were would all confess to being agnostics on the question of the truth of reality and God, etc. We'd all be far better off.

Where the term agnostic simple means what the very root of the word mean, "a - gnostic" (i.e. without knowledge sufficient to answer the question at hand)

I confess that I'm agnostic.

I'm just waiting for the rest of the world to come around.

I am also agnostic (I don't claim certain knowledge of whether god/gods -- whatever that may mean -- exist), but I go further and take the position of agnostic and ignostic atheism. I don't know whether or not god/gods/etc. exist or what god/gods/etc. are (especially the "wholly other" unknowable god(s) posited by some) but I lack belief in them due to insufficient evidence for their existence and the incoherence or inscrutability of all god concepts yet put to me.

In other words, gods aren't one of the things I believe exist.

Yes, there are a lot of details and footnotes that need to be made.

I'm agnostic in terms of any actual Gods existing. I tend to believe that a "God" actually exists. But that "belief" is entirely intuitive (i.e. not based upon knowledge or evidence). And I openly admit this to everyone, including any God that might actually exist.

I agree, that it's nice to have some sort of "definition" for God. Not for the purpose of pinning down the God or putting it in a box, but rather for the very simple purpose of giving the term "God" meaning. And so I do have an understanding of what I mean by the term, and therefore I have that kind of definition for "God". But it's quite abstract and I don't feel that it pins God down in any way.

Finally, as another caveat. It could be said that I am a very strong atheist with respect to the Biblical God. I'm convinced that the God described in the Bible does not exist. However, for me this really isn't about any "God" at all. What I'm actually saying in that case is that I'm simply convinced that Hebrew mythology is not describing any actual God. I'm not saying that the God doesn't exist. I'm simply saying that I don't believe the mythology is anything more than a superstitious fable made up by men. So from my perspective that's not really even about a God at all. There is no God associated with it to be atheistic about.

That's how I view that.

[McCulloch]

Well, to begin with I would suggest that my version of "God" is correct simply because I don't attempt to put God in a box or define God in any specific way that can be pinned down to a technical dogma. And this is especially true in terms of claiming that "I know what God wants" whilst other people supposedly don't. I don't hold that position.

I am curious as to how believing in a god who cannot be defined or known is any different from not believing in a god at all. The belief that one cannot know what God wants is itself a belief about God. If you hold that belief to be true, then those who believe otherwise must believe something that you hold to be false. Thus, everyone who claims that God wants this or that, are heretical. By drawing a line in the sand and saying "This is true", even if this is that we cannot with certainty know what God wants, is to say, "I'm right and someone else is wrong".