Why Does The Concept Of A Creator God Who Knows Us Individually Set You Off?

a reply to: akushla99

The elephant is a metaphoric device

I get that. My point was its a bad metaphor for God's search for Man. Because no matter what you plug as the metaphorical device for the blind men to touch you must have a complete and total understanding of that device in order to understand that the blind men only have part of the truth. If you do not understand the totality of God and how each religion has a piece of him then you cannot make that claim.

a reply to: windword

An accidental collection of atoms like the Sun, the Solar System or the Galaxies? I beg to differ.

Well I was really referencing humans there.

Technically, that wager was resolved by Job.

Not at all, and there is no wager in Job. God is omniscient so not a wager. Second, The accusation made by Satan in Job is the Job loves God because God gave Him a bunch of stuff. So God says your wrong do what you want just don't touch him, and you'll see. This is entirely different from Mercy and Righteousness.

Why not? Those are pleasant emotions to experience and promote a quality life. Do you believe love and joy can only come from the worship of your God?

No I don't, but my question to you is why love and joy instead theft and murder? Without some form of God you only have your subjective basis, there is no objective basis for you to argue that love and joy is better than living for theft and murder.

"Christ" is the divine spark that resides in every living thing.

Why should one assume this is true? Actually Why should one assume that there is divine spark in humans at all?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I'm not sure free will exists. After my recent stay in hospital, a chap in the opposite room, had 4 prison guards with him. He was suffering from a brain tumour. The prison officers were there because the guy had been arrested for armed robbery. The guy had always been involved in petty crime, but it's believed his behaviour changed after the brain tumour had grown and was pressing on an area that controls behaviour and emotions. It's argued that the tumour had changed the mans behaviour turning him more violent. Maybe the tumour which was not his choice turned a petty criminal into a violent one. No free will involved. There must be countless cases like this

I would say in this case something 'random' was occurring (an organized chaos confusion tactic) you fell victim to; implemented by a 'Creator Being' exposing its inane sense of humor.

originally posted by: akushla99

tangerine:"I see human free will as being an impossibility when the creator, as believers claim, is all-knowing and all-powerful. Can you explain how an all-knowing creator could not know exactly what his creations would do before he created them? Can you explain how an all-powerful creator could not create his creations to do exactly that which he wanted them to do?"

akushla99: 1. All-knowing and all-powerful 'as believers claim'...these words may be understood - but don't equate to helicopter parenting/meddlesome despot...move away from this idea...

2. All-knowing creator does know (as splinters of itself) everything that is possible and probable, but allows all freedom to (itself, essentially) experience all probabilities and possibilities - giving IT/US total free will to do this (i.e. reason for free will)

3. What would be the point of this?
A99

Good question akushla. Numerous ways to diabolically outsmart itself (using humans as nere do well excuses to trip itself up with those unpredictable shannigans). God allows this because it is playing a grand master chess game with itself. However; there is one human who will outsmart god (wasn't the Jesus shill; what a comedy of errors that was). I think this is what the whole process/program is about. God is waiting; (it thinks it is in charge of everyman/freewill/self will). Unblinking eyeball on the prize. Who can finally call out/outwit God *of course will claim that victory (as was itself because self created manufactured the human)*. Daniel Webster accomplished it with the Devil so there is hope for a banana peel slip; a sideways glance (not paying attention to the one particular detail it will miss in observation). Timing is everything.

a reply to: notmyrealname

ontological existence and logic and reason are not mutually inclusive; as a matter of fact, they differ quite a bit

I don't think you understood what I said:

"My point here is that without logical justification for the ontological existence of the laws of logic and reason you friend are stuck with a world view that brings you absolutely nothing but blind faith on every action you preform on daily basis. "

I didn't say ontological existence and logic. I said the ontological existence of logic and reason.

I do not need to 'justify' anything as I am not the one making statements about anything philosophical

On the contrary friend, you have a world view and so do I. Now what I have heard you say is my world view is wrong. That I believe in pseudonyms of celestial events. Ok, so what is your world view and what evidence do you have that it is reliable?

You are trying to justify unverifiable things simply through you personal belief system.

I haven't tried to justify anything, all I have done is point out a situation that everyone is faced with when it comes to trying to understand reality.

I would start with Philosophy and Logical Syntax as a base and attempt to use mathematics as a tool for that justification.

You cannot use mathematics as tool for justifying the existence of the laws of logic. Why? Logic is the base of mathematics. Without the law of identity mathematics doesn't work. If 1 doesn't always equal 1 then mathematics doesn't work. If 1 can be both 1 and not 1 mathematics doesn't work. If 1 equals 1 is both true and false mathematics doesn't work. Logic is the basis of math not the other way around. If you think it is please show me.

Ask yourself this: If there never was any religion passed down for the last 2000 years, would people inherently lose all morals and become savages or would peace work its way out?

Why would I ask myself this question? This question has nothing to do with reality. Reality is God has been a part of Man since we have been on Earth. Do I think a person needs to believe in a God to be moral? No.

Do I think some form of God needs to exist for Moral Absolutes to exist? Yes.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
....

Why would I ask myself this question? This question has nothing to do with reality. Reality is God has been a part of Man since we have been on Earth. ....

Let's examine your claim that "God has been part of Man since we have been on Earth." When you say Man I assume you are referring to Homo sapiens who have existed for about 200,000 years. Can you cite evidence that Homo sapiens worshipped God 200,000 years ago? 150,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? 25,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?

a reply to: Tangerine

Wiki:

A commonly held marker for the dawn of religious belief and practice is the advent of intentional burial marks

223,000–100,000 BCE The earliest evidence of Hominids, such as Neanderthals[2][3] and even Homo heidelbergensis,[3][4] deliberately disposing of deceased individuals usually in funerary caches. The graves, located throughout Eurasia (e.g. the Pontnewydd Cave (Wales), Atapuerca Mountains (Spain), Qafzeh, Es Skhul, Krapina (Croatia),[3] are believed to represent the beginnings of ceremonial rites, although there is some debate about this.[5] Neanderthals placed their deceased in simple graves with little or no concern for grave goods or markers; however, their graves occasionally appeared with limestone blocks in or on them, possibly an archaic form of grave marking.[3] These practices were possibly the result of empathetic feelings towards fellow tribespeople, for example: an infant buried in the Dederiyeh Cave after its joints had disarticulated was placed with concern for the correct anatomical arrangement of its body parts

There ya go.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No I don't, but my question to you is why love and joy instead theft and murder? Without some form of God you only have your subjective basis, there is no objective basis for you to argue that love and joy is better than living for theft and murder.

Yes, subjective. That's my point. There is no objective moral standard.

Love and joy are preferable to me, however, there's plenty of God ordered theft and murder in the Bible.

Why should one assume this is true? Actually Why should one assume that there is divine spark in humans at all?

Well, that's my world view, and you did ask for it. I'm not asking you to believe like me. But, likewise, why should I believe you when you say that Jesus was "God"?

a reply to: windword

Jesus was a historical person, and I believe the historical evidence points to his Resurrection as something that actually occurred in history. I promise you if you die are buried for three days in a well known tomb and come back three days later I will listen very carefully to what you have got to say. I am not asking you to believe Jesus is God because I've said it. I am asking you to believe he is God because He taught that. Now we only have two options here: either Jesus was lying, or he was telling the truth. What does the historical evidence best support?

Yes, subjective. That's my point. There is no objective moral standard. Love and joy are preferable to me, however, there's plenty of God ordered theft and murder in the Bible.

I agree if God doesn't exist morals are subjective, but I have never once had a subjective moral experience. My moral intuition may have been off at times, but I have never had something done wrong to me and my line of thought be, "what this person just did was just wrong for me not for everyone."

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Jesus was a historical person, and I believe the historical evidence points to his Resurrection as something that actually occurred in history.

No, it doesn't.

I agree if God doesn't exist morals are subjective, but I have never once had a subjective moral experience.

Morality IS subjective. Even if God DOES exist, morality is STILL subjective.

a reply to: windword

No, it doesn't.

Oh and what procedure did you use as you were determining whether or not the historical evidence points to a resurrected christ.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I used the procedure that states that dead men don't get up and walk around and talk to people, let people touch them, get hungry and ask for a piece of meat.

Do you suppose that dead men use the toilet as well?

a reply to: windword

Yes and that line of though is based on your world view, which presupposes their is no God, which is a philosophical bias when it comes to interpreting history.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

My world view presumes that the Biblical God is not the creator of the universe or lord over anything, including me. I believe that I am a part of God just as much as Jesus was, if he existed at all.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

My world view presumes that the Biblical God is not the creator of the universe or lord over anything, including me. I believe that I am a part of God just as much as Jesus was, if he existed at all.

I don't feel I am disenfranchised; but it took a lot of work to finally 'get it'; I am just as much a part of god as Jesus was (he just had better instruction after incarnating) which I cry 'foul'; not in the least fair, not a flat game board or playing field, he received some type of favoritism. We have to struggle with who and what we are (much less accomplish in this lifetime "what the plan is") as far as path findings are concerned. How about some initial direction given without having to wade through countless doctrines/dogmas to find one that resonates an individual truth? Its almost impossible in this age to have the time to do so. Why is it so hard/why is life made to be so, the distractions; one has just a few minutes a day to focus on the interior 'kingdom' of oneself (meditation a tool), which is where the entire universe is housed in miniature "the kingdom of god is within you" is a phrase no westerner would understand without study of the Eastern traditions.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

Yes and that line of though is based on your world view, which presupposes their is no God, which is a philosophical bias when it comes to interpreting history.

There is a unifying presence that created all of this (god is a catch phrase) but this creative force is more of an information/organizing entity. This program was set up as a philosophical/physical matter experiment; 'what happens here and there/cause effect'. Because this system based upon curiosity regarding itself (to grow in understanding and knowledge of who it is) is also self correcting (one that will continue unless it ceases to be profitable/all history will vanish) any singular vision world views are allowed (the least of your concern).