Assumptions About God(s)

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil, sane or insane or even has the emotional & mental maturity humans like to expect of people 30 or older. We have no way of knowing it's any better than Trelayne of Star Trek TOS. However it came to be or if it always existed, having the power to create and/or control life, the universe & everything doesn't mean, doesn't even imply, wisdom, compassion, understanding, tolerance, fairness, trustworthiness, selfconfidence, benevolence or even intelligence.
Even if we're mainly discussing 1 god, imagine, for a minute, there are many, each creating its own universe. Perhaps all the others admire our god for the great ways our universe is made & controled. Perhaps all the others demean our god for the awful mess it's made.
Perhaps humans (& beings on many other planets?) are a game or a big joke to it. Perhaps the universe is to god as TV is to us. Perhaps we're god's lab rats. Perhaps we're pawns in a war between 2 or more gods. Or something they place bets on.
Perhaps everyone goes to a true paradise after death. (Of course, that would be a huge disappointment to many theists.) Perhaps no 1 does.
Perhaps there's no life after death for any of us in heaven, hell, limbo or paradise. I've said if we find we do have souls that live on after death, that doesn't mean there's a god. The opposite is true. If there is a god, that does not necessarily mean we have souls.
Some will say they know because the bible says so or because they have faith. That misses the point.
A god wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation at all to humans. Including being truthful.
1111

 

[lightgigantic]

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil, sane or insane or even has the emotional & mental maturity humans like to expect of people 30 or older. We have no way of knowing it's any better than Trelayne of Star Trek TOS.

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

However it came to be or if it always existed, having the power to create and/or control life, the universe & everything doesn't mean, doesn't even imply, wisdom, compassion, understanding, tolerance, fairness, trustworthiness, selfconfidence, benevolence or even intelligence.

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

Even if we're mainly discussing 1 god, imagine, for a minute there are many, each creating its own universe. Perhaps all the others admire our god for the great ways our universe is made & controled. Perhaps all the others demean our god for the awful mess it's made.

I guess a lot depends whether one is beginning their analysis of the situation of this phenomenal existence being the best of all possible worlds or not ...

Perhaps humans (& beings on many other planets?) are a game or a big joke to it. Perhaps the universe is to god as TV is to us. Perhaps we're god's lab rats. Perhaps everyone goes to a true paradise after death. (Of course, that would be a huge disappointment to many theists.) Perhaps no 1 does.
Perhaps there's no life after death for any of us in heaven, hell, limbo or paradise. I've said if we find we do have souls that live on after death, that doesn't mean there's a god. The opposite is true. If there is a god, that does not necessarily mean we have souls.

perhaps we can examine scripture and scriptural commentaries from practitioners to also gain an understanding

Some will say they know because the bible says so or because they have faith. That misses the point.
A god wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation at all to humans. Including being truthful.
1111

As far as I can see, you simply replace what you assume to be an assumption with your assumption. Of course everyone tends to be attached to their particular ideas in life, but it is the special contribution of philosophy to critically justify an onotological/ethical perspective, and its generally the tool we use to separate the wheat from the chaff

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You can't see very far.
1111

 

[YinyangDK]

I understand where you are heading.
I like to call it the Zoom effect, Where you are drawing paralells between two or more worlds that on the surface does not seem to have any. Doing this gives you an understanding of the subject.
So by trying to understand the GOD subject you impose your and everyone else´s ideas onto the god image and sees what sticks. But since we only have a mental image og god then god is as different as you and I.
Try instead turning (zoom in) the picture, aks the same questions from an opposite view. where you draw paralelles between:
You and your bodycells.
You and a pet.
You and your child.
you and your parents.

In many ways you are a god yourself, in other ways you are a spec of dust.
I would say that the difference between us and "god" is the same as our cells and us.
The cells might be able to comprehend that they are parts of a world that is our body, they are able to recognize their own forms of cells and will combat invasive cells.
But are we as gods of our own body allways good gods?
Are we even aware of our godhood?
And what do we want from our minions? (obedience...?)

I could go on forever, but I´ll cut it short here.
YinYangDK

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

I guess a lot depends whether one is beginning their analysis of the situation of this phenomenal existence being the best of all possible worlds or not ...



perhaps we can examine scripture and scriptural commentaries from practitioners to also gain an understanding



As far as I can see, you simply replace what you assume to be an assumption with your assumption. Of course everyone tends to be attached to their particular ideas in life, but it is the special contribution of philosophy to critically justify an onotological/ethical perspective, and its generally the tool we use to separate the wheat from the chaff

Your "questions" make no sense so cannot be answered.
I haven't assumed anything that's not evident.
1111

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I'm asking why anyone assumes a god to be good. Or sane. Or wise. Etc, etc, etc.
1111

 

[lightgigantic]

Your "questions" make no sense so cannot be answered.
I haven't assumed anything that's not evident.
1111

if its so evident, why can't you answer?
:wtf:

 

[Simon Anders]

I'm asking why anyone assumes a god to be good. Or sane. Or wise. Etc, etc, etc.
1111

That's a good question and does not assume that much. But to say no one could know does assume things. It assume that God is beyond knowing or beyond communication. That there must be a gap.

How can you be sure that no one could know?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

1st, evidently I haven't phrased things to your satisfaction.
But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.
IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111

 

[lightgigantic]

1st, evidently I haven't phrased things to your satisfaction.
But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.
IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111

how would you propose that someone determine if you are good, sane, wise, truthful, etc?

 

[Simon Anders]

But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.

Good, then you cannot have decided any of these things about me, or even SAM, then.

IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111

If someone wants to convince you they know God is good: iow they say you should believe them - then yes, they need to show this somehow.

But if you, as you did here, say that one cannot know whether God is good or not, you are making a claim about the way things must be. And so you are the one making a claim.

If you mean by what you said here that you are dropping this claim, well then, OK.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Absurd strawman.
1111

 

[Simon Anders]

Absurd strawman.
1111

What is?

You said:

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil...

I am referring to this, which is clearly saying that certain things must be the case.

How do you know that there could be no way of knowing God is good or evil if there is a God? You are making a claim. Back it up.

and by the way: if you meant 'strawman' in reference to what I said about communication, please go back and read your sentence. It is not clear. I have been here before with you where you do not write clearly, then are shocked or very critical when you are misunderstood.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Simon-you know this game.

Stranger-I'd have fallen right into this one much as LG did. All views you don't accept are absurd strawman, posters you disagree with are incompetent. I have travelled this road with you before, and I am in no hurry to do so again. Perhaps your fellow anti-theists will come and grouse with you. I will not participate past this single post. Theists of any sort-read Lighgigantic's signature and follow the instructions regarding this thread. There is no open thought here, just cold derision.

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon-you know this game.

Sure. I've actually realized that Stranger quite often writes unclearly and is therefore surprised by the responses he gets which he dismisses as the irrationality of theists. Which is an excellent system.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You are making a mountain out of an anthill while ignoring the mountain range.
If you don't want to contribute to the topic of this thread, why are you posting here?
1111

 

[Simon Anders]

You are making a mountain out of an anthill while ignoring the mountain range.
If you don't want to contribute to the topic of this thread, why are you posting here?
1111

If you are responding to me I am right on topic.

The title of the thread is 'Assumptions About God(s)'

I am pointing out that you are making assumptions about God. You are doing it in the subjunctive.

I am responding directly to the first sentence in your OP where you make a claim. I think this claim needs backing up. To ask for back up for claims made in a thread that 1) fit with the title of the thread and 2) relate to the opening sentence of the OP is to be right on topic.

 

[Bowser]

The creator of life and the universe--the assumption would seem to lean towards sane and good god. But who knows about such things

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

But WHY does 1 assume that?
1111

 

[Bowser]

But WHY does 1 assume that?
1111

I suppose it depends on your views regarding life and what you have been taught. My experience is that people who are successful in life also have a strong faith in god, but the same is often true for those who are doing poorly. Some are appreciative while others are desperate. Either way, people have been told to expect miracles from a higher source and naturally believe that god is good.