Pick a God, any God.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Consider the three following Gods:

God A: Basically the Same as the Christian God
God B: The Same as God A Plus Universal Salvation and Immediate Cessation of All Suffering
God C: Some Other God You Find Preferable
God D: No God at All

Which God would you pick? Please name the God (A, B, C, or D) and why you prefer that God. For instance, if you choose God D, why do prefer that no God exists?

Note that I'm not asking which God you think exists but which God you prefer would exist. What kind of a God do you think would be good to exist? If you had a choice, which God would that be?

My pick is God C. God C would immediately end all suffering and offer universal salvation from death but has not committed the atrocities of the Christian God or any other cruel act. I prefer such a God because I want all people to be free of suffering now and forever. I don't believe such a God exists, but I would prefer that that God would be real.

[Paul of Tarsus]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #28]

If it's nice to know "there's something bigger and more powerful than humanity that rooted for us," then that's an advantage if it makes you feel good, isn't it?

If making you feel good is an advantage for you, then yes. I don't see it as an advantage. It's just 'nice'.

I tend to think of nice things as being advantageous.

It's like objecting to categorizing a supreme lifeform as a god.

Who is objecting?

You said that you don't consider supreme lifeforms to be gods. What's the difference?

Such distinctions are very subjective and are not important to this discussion.

Discounting others isn't productive in an open discussion IMO.

I didn't discount anybody. I just don't like hair splitting.

But it's good to know some have a finger on what is and isn't important

This discussion is important to me. Rather than go off on tangents, I prefer to discuss and debate the central issue. The whole point which I hinted at in the OP is that some hypothetical Gods are preferable to the Christian God. If Christians stick with their God, then they must stick with the world's troubles.

If you would be so kind, then please address that issue.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #32]

I tend to think of nice things as being advantageous.

Not me, obviously.

You said that you don't consider supreme lifeforms to be gods. What's the difference?

To me, the term 'objecting' comes with a lot more negative connotation. Saying a supreme life form isn't a god isn't, to me, objecting to the idea that another person may. Which is what I was trying to get across.

I didn't discount anybody. I just don't like hair splitting.

You seem to be splitting hairs with the 'objection' you cited earlier. I actually don't recall using the terms 'object' or 'objection' at all, until you brought it up (but my memory isn't what it used to be). Not trying to 'split hairs' but I tend to try to live, on these online forums, with the idea of 'not putting words into the mouths of others'. I'm not always successful, but I try, at least.

The whole point which I hinted at in the OP is that some hypothetical Gods are preferable to the Christian God.

I think that's very true. Gods tend to be made up, in humanity's likeness (or, in some cases of those who are more machoistic, the exact opposite of humanity). That being My POV, I think your point is very true and accurate, but not totally unexpected (the concept of a made up god, not your point).

I tend not to subscribe to 'gods' at all. It denotes, to me, an almost forced sense of worship and slavery.
Surely, if a god exists, it is a supreme being, but not all supreme being need be a god at all. Which is the point I 'hinted' at originally.
The whole 'square/rectangle, rectangle/square' thing.

[Paul of Tarsus]

The whole point which I hinted at in the OP is that some hypothetical Gods are preferable to the Christian God.

I think that's very true. Gods tend to be made up, in humanity's likeness (or, in some cases of those who are more machoistic, the exact opposite of humanity). That being My POV, I think your point is very true and accurate, but not totally unexpected (the concept of a made up god, not your point).

Yes, and as I'm sure you know not all Gods are what we might prefer. Why would somebody make up a nasty God like the Bible God, for example? Who would prefer a God who deems us guilty for acting on our sexual desires? Apologists like to argue that nobody would make up such a "God of judgment," and therefore their God is real. Of course, it's not hard to understand that people would make up a scary God because fear can be a powerful motivator. If you can't join 'em, then scare 'em! Fear of hell may have converted more people to Christianity than desire for heaven.

I tend not to subscribe to 'gods' at all. It denotes, to me, an almost forced sense of worship and slavery.
Surely, if a god exists, it is a supreme being, but not all supreme being need be a god at all. Which is the point I 'hinted' at originally.
The whole 'square/rectangle, rectangle/square' thing.

Not all gods need to be anthropomorphic despots in the sky. As I see it, God can be understood as the basis for existence. Such a God may or may not be a conscious agent with plans for humanity, but I think it's a sure thing that God never impregnated a virgin or raised any dead people from their graves. We and our world exist, though, and we aren't completely sure why. The "reason for it all" I think we can call "God."

So as you can see, a god can be a lot of things.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #34]

We and our world exist, though, and we aren't completely sure why.

There doesn't have to be a "why." We and our world can simply be the result of nature doing her thing (physics, chemistry, etc.) without any other input or direction.

The "reason for it all" I think we can call "God."

Poetic, but meaningless as a definition of "God."

So as you can see, a god can be a lot of things.

As demonstrated by the thousands that humans have imagined over the millennia. If gods can be so thinly and vaguely defined by phrases such as the "reason for it all", what is the point? May as well just equate the words god and nature and leave it at that.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #34]

Why would somebody make up a nasty God like the Bible God, for example?

I've given up asking such questions. Humanity can sure surprise themselves.

So as you can see, a god can be a lot of things.

Not just 'a lot of things', but literally anything. Which is why, I think, gods and believe in them can be so dangerous sometimes.