You may find the notion of God as a question, a search, drives some debate enthusiasts insane. If you are flexible in your ability to look for answers regarding spirituality, if you have no rigid definition set up that can then be torn down and proven wrong, then your notion of God can't be dismantled. It aggravates some to no end Ive found, almost moreso than if you're a rabid preacher predicting hellfire and damnation and literal adherence to a holy book.
A Metaphorical God
- Thread starter Nick Danger
- Start date
You may find the notion of God as a question, a search, drives some debate enthusiasts insane. If you are flexible in your ability to look for answers regarding spirituality, if you have no rigid definition set up that can then be torn down and proven wrong, then your notion of God can't be dismantled. It aggravates some to no end Ive found, almost moreso than if you're a rabid preacher predicting hellfire and damnation and literal adherence to a holy book.
hehe Like my version of "god" (the indifferent and impartial universe)? The reverse is quite true, as well. Some debaters get frustrated when a person rigidly sticks to a belief regardless of the arguments against it.
There's all kinds of people on the planet. I like your view of "god", Nick. I'd be more prone to call it "conscience", though.
I agree karrie. I see a big helping of futility in arguing the right and wrong of a subject so firmly rooted in the unknown. Much easier on the soul to say "I don't know" when it's appropriate and forge ahead with eyes and mind open.
That fits, as would "intuition", but "God" is so much easier to spell and it only has one syllable.
That's fine; each to our own and all that. I just don't use the word "god" (rather than indifferent and impartial "universe") because of all the ridiculous connotations that go along with it.
I also like that as opposed to other views of "god", yours is deeply personal.
The thing is, that my view of truth is not just black and white. I recognize the varying shades of grey. Their are many things that we all agree on. I am referring more to the things we disagree on. A believer in god, in the biblical sense, will find all kinds of eveidence to prove their belief as does the atheist to justify theirs. When I make a statement about how I view things, I am not saying that is the way things are (for everyone) it is just the way it is for me. Some people take it to mean that I am arguing with their position. I am not.
Because if there's no evidence that something exists or it has no discernible impact on events, for all practical purposes there's no difference between its existence and non-existence.
That still doesn't answer the question. Why would the Universe be different whether there was or was not a God? What would the difference be and why?
Cliffy is right in advocating for a metaphorical God. The stories that turned to miracles
were stories even in Jesus time.
As for a socialist Muslim, that is interesting most of the Hard core Muslim groups are in
fact right wing fascists not left wingers at all.
were stories even in Jesus time.
As for a socialist Muslim, that is interesting most of the Hard core Muslim groups are in
fact right wing fascists not left wingers at all.
You may want to rethink that comment. ANY evidence from the Bible is hearsay and has been interpreted and reinterpreted , scuse the expression, god knows how many times. What's left for corroborating evidence supporting this "god"?
And any half-witted atheist knows there is a distinct lack of evidence supporting the non-existence of anything. What IS left, though, is attacking claims, the "evidence" of these claims, and providing doubt these claims are correct.
People so desperately need to believe in {X} they will leap to a conclusion and then scrounge around for whatever vaguely may be interpreted as evidence supporting their belief and even inventing "evidence" rather than letting evidence point to a conclusion.
When authors wrote the books of the Bible, they had viewpoints and were susceptible to that very issue. On top of that, they were entirely human to include the occasional fact that's been noticed in their lives. When people tell stories there is usually some sort of fact in it. IE: there may have been someone named Noah in one of those author's lives, and he may actually have built a boat to protect a few critters and his family from a local flood, most likely his goats, chickens, and the family Bowser, but a global flood and a boat that could contain 2 each of 2+ million species along with food and whatnot and so on and so forth? Uh, nope.
Aesop may even have noticed a fox trying to get a piece of cheese from a bird and flustered it enough the bird dropped the cheese and the fox ate it, so Aesop invented a fable with a punchline from it.
That's fine.
Reread Dex's post, Ger.
But a metaphorical god isn't a god, it's a metaphor, and frankly I think it's a bad one. That seems to me to be simply defining god out of existence, it's using the term just as an idea to represent something else entirely, which is more or less the definition of metaphor, but I don't see that it obviates the need for explanation. It's also a vastly confusing and misleading metaphor I wish people would not use, because the word has a common and widely understood meaning as the divinity in one of the major monotheisms. That is not what's meant, but it leads many people to think it is, and that's the source of the aggravation Karrie mentioned above. Theists have repeatedly tried to claim Einstein and Hawking as one of their own because they used the term metaphorically, even after both of them made it quite clear that by any reasonable definition they're atheists.
If there's no difference between a universe with a god and one without a god, it can only mean god plays no role in it, and thus whether he exists or not becomes irrelevant, he has no impact and might as well not exist for all the difference he makes. What the difference would be depends on what difference the god decided to make, and offering specifics would require me to make certain assumptions about his motives and purposes. That's always a risky business, especially when talking with you, but it has long seemed to me that if there's a god and he has the characteristics ascribed to him by, for instance, one of the major monotheisms like the one you subscribe to, his reality should be far more obvious than it is. There should be some evidence that admits of no other explanation than his intervention.
I am suggesting that the God of the Bible is in itself a metaphor, and that this may have been the intent of the original authors. Putting a human face on it does make it easier to grasp the concept but really, who can claim to know the true nature of God ? It's a mystery, an unknown. Intelligent design ? Benevolent dictator ? Aren't they all just guesses ?
Evidence to a believer is a subjective thing. It may not even require the words in the bible. Evidence is more about a personal revelation, an experience that leaves the experiencee with no other conclusion than divine intervention. My understanding of the divine does not fit into any religious or spiritual philosophy existing on the planet. It is based purely on my personal experiences and often changes and morphs with each new experience. It does not have anything to do with a god out there or some all seeing being separate from me. I think, in the end, it is always up to the individual to come to their own conclusions whether the divine is real or imaginary. I doubt that it matters what one believes as long as they become their truth, live their lives according to their beliefs. It also doesn't mean that I support the right of anybody to interfere in the lives of others. Above all, do no harm.
I find that hard to credit, it seems pretty clear to me from reading the Bible that its authors viewed god as very real and present.
Intelligent design is a demonstrably useless and badly flawed idea. As for the rest, I think they're more likely to be delusions.
I'm no Bible scholar but hasn't that book undergone some extensive editing since it was first penned ? These are the sort of questions that come to my mind. First off is how closely does the Bible in use today resemble the original ? If the original authors did in fact truly believe in a deity of the traditional form ( white hair, white robes, throne of fire/gold seems to be a recurring theme in today's Bible) what was the source of their belief ? So many questions that the recurring theme in my mind is "I don't know", so if the bottom line is unknowable, why not envision a God that embraces that mystery ?
I don't know.
Aboriginals call it The Great Mystery. Made sense to me. I doubt that the original texts upon which the bible is based looked anything like they do today. Much of the new testament was written centuries after the fact and much of the Christ myth is based on older gods from Egypt, India, Persia and Babylon (this has nothing to do with Jesus the human though).
You made "assumptions" in your original statement, so why stop now.
As for evidence, there is lots of evidence for those that are willing to see. Obviously, you are one of the unwilling....... at this time.
That's fine; each to our own and all that. I just don't use the word "god" (rather than indifferent and impartial "universe") because of all the ridiculous connotations that go along with it.
I also like that as opposed to other views of "god", yours is deeply personal.
'force' fits nicely in discussions I often have with 'real life' friends, in much the same manner I was discussing it in the recent evolution thread.
So, I have to say, if Gerry needs to reread, so do you.
Cliffy is right... staunch believers in a biblical god will find evidence that corroborates his existence for them. There are museums dedicated to proving biblical history and disproving evolution even. He didn't say it would be right by your standard, just that they would find it.
The first thing that strikes me about this argument, is that you seem to assert that you or I would be able to tell the difference between a universe with a god, or without, when humanity can't agree on which this universe is. If you don't have two universes to compare side by side, one with a proven god, with a proven absence of god, how exactly do you propose to state what god's effect looks like in a universe?
Frankly, the whole argument boils down to hubby and I trying to pick paint colours without reference. It's gray. No, it's blue. No, it's more green than blue. Nope, definitely blue. You're colour blind, you don't get say.
Typically when the intelligent design discussion is demonstrated as 'badly flawed', it is when atheists hold it up against the rigid rules of an omnipotent, all knowing, perfect god. Intelligent design as a broader mechanism of some force kick starting evolution, has turned out a much more elegant and functional product than most human engineering is capable of. So it still speaks to a game plan of broader scope and intelligence than our own. I find that a fascinating issue to ponder on.
But, again, it ****s with people's ability to debate the issue if you just keep finding more questions instead of accepting rigid definitions.