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.

[Tcg]

I did say it was not to be taken too literally which is different from saying it was not to be taken seriously.

What is the difference and why should it be taken seriously?


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

The Christian god, if like the bible says he is, is a punk not worthy of anyone other than total ignoring its existence thus, eliminating A & B.
And it would be nice to think there's 'something bigger than humanity out there', presumably, 'rooting' for humanity, eliminating D, leaving C.

Actually, I'd opt for E - a supreme lifeform that's not a god at all. But I didn't see that as a choice.

A "supreme lifeform" sounds like a God C to me. Why do you prefer that such a being exists? Is it just good to think about?

[nobspeople]

The Christian god, if like the bible says he is, is a punk not worthy of anyone other than total ignoring its existence thus, eliminating A & B.
And it would be nice to think there's 'something bigger than humanity out there', presumably, 'rooting' for humanity, eliminating D, leaving C.

Actually, I'd opt for E - a supreme lifeform that's not a god at all. But I didn't see that as a choice.

A "supreme lifeform" sounds like a God C to me. Why do you prefer that such a being exists? Is it just good to think about?

Personally, I don't consider a 'supreme lifeform' to be any god, thus the reason I eliminated C.
As I said: "And it would be nice to think there's 'something bigger than humanity out there', presumably, 'rooting' for humanity..."
That doesn't mean it must be a deity of any type that we would actively see as a god.

[JoeyKnothead]

I pick the pretty thing. She fetches up breakfast, and groceries, and the washing and stuff, and has this whole thing about frilly clothes that just fusses me up.

And all I gotta do is keep the roof up and the power on, and the occasional bug squishing. But she's pretty, so she wins it on that'n right there alone.

Otherwise, I pick tam's god. She presents that'n there as a good guy, just trying to make it work.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Personally, I don't consider a 'supreme lifeform' to be any god, thus the reason I eliminated C.
As I said: "And it would be nice to think there's 'something bigger than humanity out there', presumably, 'rooting' for humanity..."
That doesn't mean it must be a deity of any type that we would actively see as a god.

So whatever this supreme lifeform might be, you prefer it because it would be nice for something awesome to root for us people. I agree that such a supreme lifeform would be to our advantage as long as we do not become complacent assuming it will solve our problems. It's bad enough that people look to God for help rather than try to save themselves.

[nobspeople]

Personally, I don't consider a 'supreme lifeform' to be any god, thus the reason I eliminated C.
As I said: "And it would be nice to think there's 'something bigger than humanity out there', presumably, 'rooting' for humanity..."
That doesn't mean it must be a deity of any type that we would actively see as a god.

So whatever this supreme lifeform might be, you prefer it because it would be nice for something awesome to root for us people. I agree that such a supreme lifeform would be to our advantage as long as we do not become complacent assuming it will solve our problems. It's bad enough that people look to God for help rather than try to save themselves.

For me, "...a supreme lifeform would be to our advantage..." would be immaterial and not something I'd personally want. It would just be nice to know there's something bigger and more powerful than humanity that rooted for us, even if it didn't interfere with humanity's daily lives. If for nothing else, to show humanity that being more than they are is possible.

I think believing in a god and praying to it for help, while it can be morally uplifting to do so, makes many of those doing so lazy in a sense. Instead doing it themselves, they tend to sit back and say 'well, whatever God's will is....'
I find that lazy.

[Paul of Tarsus]

For me, "...a supreme lifeform would be to our advantage..." would be immaterial and not something I'd personally want. It would just be nice to know there's something bigger and more powerful than humanity that rooted for us, even if it didn't interfere with humanity's daily lives. If for nothing else, to show humanity that being more than they are is possible.

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? It's like objecting to categorizing a supreme lifeform as a god. Supreme lifeforms might well be seen as gods depending on what you mean by gods. Such distinctions are very subjective and are not important to this discussion.

I think believing in a god and praying to it for help, while it can be morally uplifting to do so, makes many of those doing so lazy in a sense. Instead doing it themselves, they tend to sit back and say 'well, whatever God's will is....'I find that lazy.

Prayer is quick, easy, and doesn't cost a dime. It's cheap and lazy and is no substitute for real help. What you're posting here reminds me of what Robert Ingersoll said about prayer:

[JoeyKnothead]

...
It's cheap and lazy and is no substitute for real help.
...

You dare call folks lazy, and comment about needed help, when you refuse to suppoert your own claims?


Geetting kinda of tired you asking about why present evidence - that you refuse to present - and asking about liars, and now carrying on about how folks are lazy and need 'real help'.

Is your only argument that folks suffer em the exact same things it is you do?

[Purple Knight]

Yes, in many cases some people's morality is privileged, and it can be frustrating if you are not one of those people. It seems to me that power and the setting of moral standards go together. So moral standards aren't set by those who are necessarily the most moral but by those who are most powerful. In other words, "might is right."

It isn't always power. For example, the movement against police corruption doesn't have any power, but you can see, even in the most fervent deniers of police brutality, a frustration that belies their convictions. No one believes the police in America are just. What's right is not always convenient but the point is, someone is setting that standard. Why should the police be nice, even to criminals? Well, because that is justice. That is right. Brutality is wrong, even against criminals, because even criminals have rights, and someone came up with that idea which now cannot be questioned [rightly].

Plenty of moral laws are illogical. There's no need to abstain from pork, for example. But what moral law is based solely on logic?

Most purely logical laws are dependent on if-statements. If you favour equality, if equality is your goal, then you must treat people equally. So an example of a purely logical law would be that you can't be for equality and then treat people unequally. Another consequential law would be that if you expect people to follow your moral laws without telling them what those laws are, or even if there is conflicting information out there, your laws must be derivable by logic. Therefore, no inventing laws in your own head that aren't derivable by logic, then expecting people to follow them.

So if God exists, then you seem to think we'd have a kind of moral elitism in which some people are morally superior to others no matter what anybody thinks. We would have the sinners and the "holier than thous."

Yes. That's the difference between God and some random, very powerful being: God has morality by definition. It can then share that privilege with whosoever it chooses.

Even if God exists and told you that, you wouldn't be able to know if he is right.

Correct, but I can make the statement that I am unhappy with that scenario if it is right. If I discover I'm the one with moral privilege, I'm unhappy with that because I want nobody to have any moral privilege. I want people who disagree with me about morality to be just as right as I am. And that can only happen if there's no God. (If there's a God but he has nothing to say about morality, his will is still morality even if he doesn't tell anyone, and if he has no will he effectively doesn't exist.)

[nobspeople]

[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'.

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

Who is objecting?

Supreme lifeforms might well be seen as gods depending on what you mean by gods.

Exactly.

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

Discounting others isn't productive in an open discussion IMO. But it's good to know some have a finger on what is and isn't important