Belief in God

[Vēritās]

Well, I believe that God the Father was the architect, and that His Son Jesus constructed, but in a very real sense they are each the same God.

Yes, that is the Mormon version, of course. But why believe it just because that's something the Mormon Church came up with? The entire Temple ceremony is based on laughable misunderstanding of God's name. He isn't "Elohim" as he is portrayed in the Mormon temple skit. He is El or Jehovah, according to most of the Bible. Mormon leaders eventually addressed this problem by coming up with this, "Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament."

Some Schmo, how could it have been better?

Without religion, for starters.

How about a world where billions of people aren't terrified that some all powerful being is going to burn them for eternity if they don't bow down and worship him? How about a God that can save us without having to brutally sacrifice his own son? I mean, he's all powerful, right? The whole idea of our need to overcome sin by accepting someone else's human sacrifice (a person you have absolutely no proof even existed) is nothing short of morbid and kinda stupid when you actually step out of the box you've been raised in and look at it objectively. It is also entirely illogical and superfluous.

[Some Schmo]

I suppose the world could be worse, but it could also be infinitely better.

Some Schmo, how could it have been better?

An obvious improvement would be a stable environment where we didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather. That one change alone would reduce suffering in the world significantly.

The problem most religious people have is they seem to think suffering is necessary for some kind of afterlife salvation, so they accept nonsense like god gives us challenges to help us grow. It's true that challenges help us grow, but those challenges should be incremental. When we start working out, we start with light resistance, not trying to bench press 400 lbs. I don't think wiping out huge swathes of people in tsunamis is the kind of societal challenge we need to grow. Most of it is just traumatic and causes some kind of PTSD. This does not forward the human experience, and it's incredibly annoying when religious people try to justify such unnecessary cruelty. The world is a cruel place. There's no getting around that with platitudes and myths.

[KevinSim]

I've returned as promised.

Jersey Girl, glad to hear you found time. You said a bunch of things about which I didn't know whether you wanted me to respond to or not. If you did want me to respond to some things I've omitted, let me know what they are and I'll do my best. For now I'm going to focus on a couple of things you said at the end.

There you go with the impossible premise of thinking you are charged with taking care of everybody. What do you mean and who do you think you are that you are charged with taking care of everybody??????

I did a Google search on "the ones who walk away from omelas ursula le guin", and I got a blurb that included: "'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin. With deliberately both vague and vivid descriptions, the narrator depicts a summer festival in the utopian city of Omelas, whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child." I haven't read this short story (yet), but I've done a lot of thinking about its central question. If an enormous amount of good (in this case the utopian city Omelas) can be brought about with the price the perpetual torture of the one small child, is the price worth it?
I say no, absolutely not. It's never worth it. But our society seems to be saying yes, as long as the small child is so far in the future that it doesn't have to think about her/him a lot. Think about it a little bit. A lot of people ignore predictions of catastrophes caused by global warming ultimately because they're sure those catastrophes won't happen in their lifetimes. Who will pay for the convenience fossil fuel consumption provides them? Future generations! Their children and their grandchildren! Who will pay for congress' liberal use of deficit spending? Future generations. All of society is built on the assumption that when one generation is in its declining years, the next couple of generations will run senior care centers to take care of it. That's fine if those future generations are always guaranteed to exist. Are they?
All of this is just Omelas in another form. The small child who must suffer so that we can enjoy life is always so far in the future that we don't care what happens to her/him. My whole point is that we need to care. Our consciences should require us to care. That small child is a real person, with hopes and dreams like all of us, and we can't conscientiously afford to ignore that s/he exists.
I have never meant to say that there is anything special about me. I am not the only person who has to work toward the welfare of everybody who will ever live; I think if we think about it, we all have that responsibility. It's too big a job for any one person to alone do, so we have to divide the herculean task (taking care of the welfare of everybody) among the people willing to provide that service. Figuring out how to so divide that task is a herculean task itself, and I don't see how anybody but God can pull it off. So I say our consciences need God.

Jersey Girl, do you think that would be on topic?

Yes. Do you?

Really no. This thread began as a discussion of the reasons to believe or not believe in God. Christianity does not own the concept of God. There are many people in the world who believe in God but have no connection with Christianity whatsoever.
All that said, I have no objection to putting what I think about Jesus on the record. He suffered and died for me. I was a servant of sin, sometimes grievous sin, and Jesus set me free from that sin. Jesus is the Son of God, and in a very real sense, Jesus is God. That is what I think of Jesus.

[KevinSim]

Some Schmo, why should I believe that?

You have no good reason to believe otherwise, except for its utility and associated comfort, but certainly not for any truth value.

SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) assumes that the Milky Way Galaxy (or Universe?) is home to more intelligent life than just what resides on Earth. What's the truth value of that assumption? Is it reasonable for SETI to look for radio transmissions from other star systems?

And therefore no deity has ever visited Earth? How does that follow?

It doesn't necessarily follow, but it does seem like a good reason to doubt.

Absolutely it's reason to doubt. I find myself doubting it from time to time. But I see no good reason to dwell on such doubts.

No credible reports of Bigfoot have been reported. Should we assume Bigfoot exists anyway?

I can't think of any good reason to assume Bigfoot exists. Can you?

[KevinSim]

FTR here is a list of people I would absolutely "dip" on because they are a waste of time.

1. Markk (vortex)
2. Ajax (vortex)
3. MG (vortex)
4. KevinSim (how I evaluate him right now).
5. Binger (Something's wrong with the guy and I'm not even curious as to what it is)

Jersey Girl, why do you think I am a waste of time, or might become a waste of time?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

FTR here is a list of people I would absolutely "dip" on because they are a waste of time.

1. Markk (vortex)
2. Ajax (vortex)
3. MG (vortex)
4. KevinSim (how I evaluate him right now).
5. Binger (Something's wrong with the guy and I'm not even curious as to what it is)

Jersey Girl, why do you think I am a waste of time, or might become a waste of time?

-_-

[KevinSim]

Veritas, rhetorical questions are questions asked to make a point. Are you trying to say that it makes as much sense to believe in the spaghetti monster as it does to believe in God?

Yes.

Why do you think so?

[KevinSim]

If on the other hand KevinSim had phrased his question even-handedly. he would have had to say something like:

"Are you trying to say that it makes as much sense to believe in the spaghetti monster as it does to believe in the entity that Mormons call 'Heavenly Father'?"

The obvious answer would be "Why not?".

Which is why he will not do that.

Okay, fine. Veritas, are you trying to say that it makes as much sense to believe in the spaghetti monster as it does to believe in the entity that Mormons call Heavenly Father?

[KevinSim]

How about a God that can save us without having to brutally sacrifice his own son? I mean, he's all powerful, right?

No, he's not. I haven't believed God is all powerful for a very long time.

The whole idea of our need to overcome sin by accepting someone else's human sacrifice (a person you have absolutely no proof even existed) is nothing short of morbid and kinda stupid when you actually step out of the box you've been raised in and look at it objectively.

Veritas, why do you think so?

[KevinSim]

Some Schmo, how could it have been better?

An obvious improvement would be a stable environment where we didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather.

Some Schmo, how could God have created the stable environment you spoke of, one where we "didn't need to worry about shifting tectonic plates or extreme weather"? Is that an easy thing to do, to create such a stable environment?