6 of 10
6
Why did God create the Earth and humanity in the first place?
Posted: 10 July 2012 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Write4U:

July 10 you answered no. Which question does “no” answer? Boiled down, are bloggers ever allowed to make assumptions for the sake of responding to the blogs?

You said (generally) that man’s actions pursuing their beliefs were the best counter argument. No doubt pursuit is attempted with many sins. Do sins dictate what is true? Why should the messenger’s sins fall on the message’s truth?

Is it possible Christians are adherents (not to avoid sinning) but because they are sinners?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 10 July 2012 09:44 PM

Write4U:

July 10 you answered no. Which question does “no” answer? Boiled down, are bloggers ever allowed to make assumptions for the sake of responding to the blogs?

You said (generally) that man’s actions pursuing their beliefs were the best counter argument. No doubt pursuit is attempted with many sins. Do sins dictate what is true? Why should the messenger’s sins fall on the message’s truth?

Is it possible Christians are adherents (not to avoid sinning) but because they are sinners?

student

I should hope not. As a symbolic presentation of Conscience, it does not in any way alter the choices we are presented with and morality by which we handle such circumstances. Bad choices by theists are just as sinful as bad choices by atheists. But strangely, a virtuous theist (Mother Theresa) is adored, while a virtuous atheist (Hypatia) gets villified as sinful and murdered.

Perhaps christians need to study the application of virtue and refrain from applying the stigma of sin to an atheist because he/she has a different opinion on a totally irrelevant (hypothetical) subject.

Clean your own backyard before you criticize mine.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 10:33 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

btw. the “you” in the above was used as a generaility and nothing personal implied. I try to be as objective as possible.

My issue is not with trying to come up with answers that the questioner wants to hear, but to state my opinion on a certain question.
My argument was against the question itself. It is duplicitous in nature. It asks for an answer that cannot be formulated on the merits of the question. And I do not in any way endorse or advocate for something in which I do not believe. I would never pose a question like “assuming the earth is flat would it’s ecosystem be different?  If you wish to, have at it.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 11:16 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Write4U:

You answered [you] should hope not. Is that you should hope bloggers are never allowed to assume, you should hope the messenger’s sins should never fall on the message’s truth, or you should hope Christians are not adherents because they are sinners?

You said your (as a general message) own backyard should be clean before you criticize mine. If a clean backyard was a prerequisite, I would never get to criticize.

You said christians need to . . . refrain from applying . . . sin to an atheist. No argument here. Would sin be another irrelevant (hypothetical) subject to an atheist?

You said your argument was against the question itself. Why blog on an unacceptable question?

Write4U said if you wish to, have at [answering the blog question]. For those with broader boundaries on acceptable questions, why did God create the Earth and humanity in the first place?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 11 July 2012 11:12 AM

Write4U:

You answered [you] should hope not. Is that you should hope bloggers are never allowed to assume, you should hope the messenger’s sins should never fall on the message’s truth, or you should hope Christians are not adherents because they are sinners?

I should hope that no one is an inherent sinner. I have more faith in the nature of man. I do not deny there are sinners (bad people), but to assert that all people are sinners clouds the issue of virtue. We have choices to live in sin or in virtue, regardless of religion or God. I am offended by the duplicity of someone telling me “in spite of being a sinner you do live a virtuous life”. What kind of compliment is that? One cannot be both at the same time. Sin and virtue are expressions of lifestyle and deeds.

You said your (as a general message) own backyard should be clean before you criticize mine. If a clean backyard was a prerequisite, I would never get to criticize.


It depends on what type of clutter is in your back yard. It appears that theists cannot even agree on which god would improve their gardens and accuse each other of clutter. So, until theists can reach agreement on which god is the True God, don’t come preaching in my back yard.

You said christians need to . . . refrain from applying . . . sin to an atheist. No argument here. Would sin be another irrelevant (hypothetical) subject to an atheist?

See above.

You said your argument was against the question itself. Why blog on an unacceptable question?

If I asked why 2 + 2 = 5 , what would you do? Try to answer the question or bring attention to the false assumption of the question?
Should anyone in their right mind attempt to actually support such a notion?

Write4U said if you wish to, have at [answering the blog question]. For those with broader boundaries on acceptable questions, why did God create the Earth and humanity in the first place?
student

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 01:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 09:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Write4U:

Seems most of your questions are rhetorical. If I should have answered one (or all) of your questions, please feel free to point out the questions you were expecting an answer on.

You said that one cannot be both a sinner and virtuous at the same time. How can a high school student earn a baseball scholarship and at the same time be bad enough to never earn a dollar in the major league? Is it possible for me to be a sinner by God’s standard and at the same time be virtuous by man’s standard? Did you ever guess how low man’s standard could get?

You asked what I would do with someone’s answer that 2 + 2 = 5. Seems curiosity would be overwhelming. Seems like a good time to ask why think that. Alternatively, you are right. Trying to answer the question would be impossible and bringing attention to a false assumption is a good option.

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 11:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 12 July 2012 09:06 PM

Write4U:

Seems most of your questions are rhetorical. If I should have answered one (or all) of your questions, please feel free to point out the questions you were expecting an answer on.

You said that one cannot be both a sinner and virtuous at the same time. How can a high school student earn a baseball scholarship and at the same time be bad enough to never earn a dollar in the major league? Is it possible for me to be a sinner by God’s standard and at the same time be virtuous by man’s standard? Did you ever guess how low man’s standard could get?

Oh, I know how low man can fall, especially theists. But your example of the baseball player is a strawman. Lack of skill is not a sin.
But to be precise, IMO, all humans are capable of sin and virtue, and a measure of free will to make the choice. But being capable of sin does not make someone sinful, nor is being capable of virtue virtuous in itself. But if someone lives a virtuous life, there is no reason why this person cannot be called virtuous without the ever present theist qualification that in spite of being virtuous he/she will always be a sinner.
I believe Nobel might be a better example to your point. He was a generally a virtuous person, but made his fortune from creating instruments of war, a grave sin IMO. Later in life he saw his error of bad choice and used that ill gotten fortune to found the Nobel Peace prize, and many more prizes and honorable mentions in recognition of people who were instrumental to the advancement of sciences and humanities.

You asked what I would do with someone’s answer that 2 + 2 = 5. Seems curiosity would be overwhelming. Seems like a good time to ask why think that. Alternatively, you are right. Trying to answer the question would be impossible and bringing attention to a false assumption is a good option.
student

I believe that was the gist of most responses to the Thread Question.

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 12:35 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 04:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Write4U:

You brought up a distinction I was not expecting. Though interesting, capability versus outcome was not the idea at this time.

Is it possible that (an arguable) God has a different standard than man has,  that major league has a different standard than little league, that the standard for a hole in one is different than the standard to golf par? Would the Nobel peace committee have a different standard than a neighborhood mediator?

student

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 04:25 AM by student ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 13 July 2012 04:22 AM

Write4U:

You brought up a distinction I was not expecting. Though interesting, capability versus outcome was not the idea at this time.

Is it possible that (an arguable) God has a different standard than man has,  that major league has a different standard than little league, that the standard for a hole in one is different than the standard to golf par? Would the Nobel peace committee have a different standard than a neighborhood mediator?

student

Seems to me that the standard in nature is set by nature. There are only two basic requirements. Survival and procreation, which is the evolutionary process. Nature does not care who or what survives. Whatever does survive has met the implied standard of Nature.

Which brings up another point I wanted to make. Why is there life around the 200 F sulphur vents on the bottom of the ocean? Why are there iceworms in the -80 F icepacks of the arctic? Why are there milions on millions of different species from single celled amoebas to man?
There is life in places where man would instantly perish. It seems that all lifeforms who have managed to adapt and flourish in the most harsh environments have met the implied standard of nature and I have often said that any species alive today deserves respect. it has met nature’s unemotional test

Ask yourself, would it make any difference to anyone or anything if man perished and vanished from this earth? Mass extinctions have ocurred many times, yet life seems to survive and continue, perhaps in a different direction, but continue nevertheless. Billions of species have disappeared only to be replaced by better adapted species.

There are several species of highly intelligent animals on earth, both on land and in the oceans. There are tool makers and tool users both on land and in the oceans. Why should man be so special? We are a product of millions of years of evolution and our very high intelligence has made us very adaptable to a range of environments, but a bushman from trhe Australian outback would be hopelesly lost in NY city, while a citydweller would not last many days in the desert as a touareg. Don’t try to act like a dolphin in the ocean
We’d be just as helpless as a dolphin in a city park.

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 05:37 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Maswah - 09 May 2012 08:59 PM

Does the bible give any indication of WHY God felt the need to create the universe, the Earth, humanity, etc.? If not, does anyone know of an answer that has any semblance of logic? I’ve searched periodically for an answer to this question, and haven’t found anything even remotely sensible for an answer thus far.

Twiddiling your thumbs for eternity is pretty boring even when you can do it at light speed.

psik

[ Edited: 03 August 2012 06:33 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

I want to build off of what TimB said in post #6, since he reformulated the initial questions properly. And also because I think the original post is becoming the forgotten topic =P

Dom1978 also said:

Can anybody here make sense of this idea of a being that is good, kind, loving etc, yet at the same time wants or needs or demands to be praised and thanked all the time…

How bout this. Love, and the other extreme, loneliness.

I for one, have always been an atheist. So it always interested me to hear what other atheists, or agnostics, had to say about what was behind a god’s “raison d’etre”. Or even more interesting, was hearing what explanation believers had. I find the two emotions I listed above accomplish all we need to know to answer the WHY. Because since god was our creation, and we didn’t have the knowledge of how complex our world truly is back then, we didn’t have much to build on, except how much our emotions, or impulses, lead our decisions and desires.

Why did god create us? To have someone to share his love with, to be a parent figure to whom we could always fall back on. A guarantee of never feeling lonely. Always trust and love him fully, and he will do the same.

Why did we create god? To have someone to always share our love with, to have a parent figure to whom we could always fall back on, whether we were abandoned here on earth, when times were brutal (and still are some places)or simply when we feel lonely as humans beings.

The answer to these questions are almost the same, because the concept is the same, whether we created him, or vise versa. I’d have to look up the actual segment of his Cosmos series, but on the occasion that Carl Sagan mentioned god and our need for him, I think he was spot on. He would say something along the lines that, as intelligent beings, we yearn for contact with other beings similar to us in some way, that we are not alone in the universe. That ultimate feeling of loneliness has created the ultimate being, the ultimate “filler”, if you will. It explains why we’ve made one up. It explains our attempt to make him perfect. Obviously he is not. Love, the lack of love, sudden or progressive, can make us do very wicked things (or at least think of them), and this is expressed as well in everything that god is and what he expects from us. I don’t think he is much more complicated than the people who made him up themselves and put it down on paper in the past. Simple as that. Simple is WHY he was created, but the concept of a god has become way too complex for our own good, and is one hell of a powerful concept too. So powerful that we thought all of our uncertainties and unknowns could be answered through him, even though we had not yet fully realized, that he was our creation. Therefore we would say he had all the answers we just had to try and “understand” and find them, or discover them (this is why people are obsessed with finding answers in the bible, you know, the people that say there is science in the bible or koran and such, as well why they still will “find” them in the future). If you realize that we created him, then you realize that only we can answer these questions.

We are alone to answer these questions (for now?), and this should bring us closer together. But instead, we allow this celestial shadow, this representation of our past, to separate us and obscure our future.

Anyways maybe I’m straying off topic myself a bit. But that’s how I see all of it. I think the general idea answers the why, should you ask it from either perspective.

 Signature 

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2012 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Imaginos:

To paraphrase, you seem to think the blog’s real question is why did people create a god with (the written about) god like features. If I paraphrased incorrectly, feel free to correct.

Why does the self confidence needed to create a god end up with a god that is so superior that man is left as nothing but a beggar from man’s own creation?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2012 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Why does the self confidence needed to create a god end up with a god that is so superior that man is left as nothing but a beggar from man’s own creation?

A) Who said self confidence has anything to do with it or even needs to?

b) Who said any of the gods claimed by are pantheons are superior? The gods of all of our religions which have a belief in gods all have the manners and morals of a spoiled and sociopathic child!

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2012 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 15 July 2012 06:16 PM

Imaginos:

To paraphrase, you seem to think the blog’s real question is why did people create a god with (the written about) god like features. If I paraphrased incorrectly, feel free to correct.

Why does the self confidence needed to create a god end up with a god that is so superior that man is left as nothing but a beggar from man’s own creation?
student

I believe we can agree that the concept of god has been around for a long time. I dare say that it has been around from before man even emerged as the dominant species.

I saw a National Geographic show on Chimpanzees once. Their social order based on Patriarchy and the constant aggressive challenges of young males seeking to replace the Alpha,  their cooperation and ganging up between groups. Their use of tools.
The gentleness of the sexual based lifestyle of the Bonobo, which is a Matriachy. All this looks a feels so much like human society, that we tend to say “the great apes act so human”.
But how is that possible, they did not learn this behavior from humans, to the contrary, humans learned this from the great apes which were our common ancestors. We could just as fairly say “humans act just like the great apes”.

But that is just background for my main point. During this show they studied the behavior of an Alpha Chimp during a monsoon thunderstorm.  Al the chimps except one cowered from the fury that was unleashed on them by the thunder, the lightning, and the downpour. This alpha was a brave fellow. He began to run around aggressively, screaming, beating his fists on his chest, tearing at bushes and throwing things around. Then finally he picked up a fairly large stick and began beating the ground with it, beating the bushes, and finally in a gesture of defiance raised the stick to the sky in a clear warning to this unseen enemy, which made all that noise, and threw fire and water at him. All these things made him feel fear, anger, and uncomfortably wet. So he took action to ward of this evil thing.
Watching this unfold, I could not help but feel that this behavior was an early recognition of some powerful being, which he considered an enemy. This is perfectly logical and natural and speaks of a rudimentary ability for imagination.  I asked myself, how this is different than any of the mythological gods of old.  In the earliest days of human civilizations, we had a god for everything, including a god of thunder and lightning such as Thor. Still later humans of old became more sophisticated in the recognition of other supernatural (not of man or beast) gods which seemed to rule .  How could people experience such similar unexplainable behaviors as love other than a god of love, who caused love, a god of war which caused war and strife. Who caused good but for a good god, who caused evil but for a god of evil? This of course also led to the practice of sacrifice in order to appease the gods and curry their favor. It is entirely natural that we bestowed Human emotions on our gods. That way we would know how to deal with them. And we know that flattery (worship) of powerful people is an effective appeasement in human society. Hence the story of the Emperor’s new clothes and the pomp and circumstance of religious rituals.

Then came science, and the discoveries which could explain the natural phenomena which up until then had been considered supernatural miracles. This new kid on the block started questioning the existence of these supernatural causalities and much like the story of the “emperor’s new clothes”, finally came to the conclusion that the gods were just imaginary cloaks given to natural events.

For those earliest mathematicians and philosophers it was dangerous to voice these “blasphemus” thoughts and ironically many were put to death as wizards and witches dabbling in the dark side of supernaturalism, i.e. they were in league with the god of evil (Satan).

IMO, when discussing the possible existence of god(s), devil(s), angels, minions and other-dimensional beings, this line of reasoning seems entirely valid to me.  It has been proven that the unknown causes fear and uncertainty, even today we have expressions like “we fear the unknown”, but that does not make this unknown a god. It is just still unknown, that is all.

IMO, it is the fact that “gods” have been around for such a long time that most have accepted them as the forces beyond our everyday natural existence.  But the more we learn about the nature of the universe and how it functions, these supernatural forces are being explained away one by one and I am confident that in the end we will be able to discard the notion of supernatural forces altogether.

[ Edited: 15 July 2012 09:56 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2012 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon:

You asked who said self confidence has anything to do with man creating a god. Write4U writes about a chimpanzee protesting the supreme being of the weather while the others cowered from the fury. Which was self confident (if not arrogant) and which were not? Assuming god is fiction, will I not need some confidence to start with a fiction and claim that fiction is true?

You asked who said any of the gods claimed by are pantheons are superior and said that religious gods are a spoiled and sociopathic child. Some describe god as creator, all knowing, savior, redeemer, raising others from the dead, raising self from the dead, feeding thousands, walking on water, calming storms, turning water to wine, etc. Religious gods have been around thousands of years. During these years, who has been superior enough to end the spoiled and psychopathic existence?

student

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 10
6