Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

The universe does not need true justice. Humans do. They need to believe that God is a God of Justice and mercy.
This is the reason belief in the Christian God will never go away. as Blaise Pascal put it, "The heart has reasons reason cannot know."

[Belindi]

The universe does not need true justice. Humans do. They need to believe that God is a God of Justice and mercy.
This is the reason belief in the Christian God will never go away. as Blaise Pascal put it, "The heart has reasons reason cannot know."

That means God as personified justice is aspirational. Aspirations are necessary for anyone to live anything like a full life. Without aspirations life is drudgery and suffering.

[Charlemagne]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

[Belindi]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

We agree that it's good to aspire towards the good God .

If God is aspirational and only aspirational then He is not substantial. We will never know for sure whether or not God is substantial, although I have an argument that He is substantial as well as aspirational.

[Charlemagne]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

We agree that it's good to aspire towards the good God .

If God is aspirational and only aspirational then He is not substantial. We will never know for sure whether or not God is substantial, although I have an argument that He is substantial as well as aspirational.

If we aspire to know God we need to ask why we do that? Is it because God is substantial, or only because aspiring to God boosts our ego? Or is it possible that God is substantial and has created us for the purpose of aspiring to know him up close and personal? These are the questions Blaise Pascal dealt with in such depth. He argued that proofs of God not being conclusive for some, they can only gamble that God exists or does not exist. The gamble is imperative. There is no other choice. If we gamble that God does not exist, and he does exist, we stand to lose everything. If we gamble that he does exist, and he does exist, we stand to gain everything.

[LuckyR]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

We agree that it's good to aspire towards the good God .

If God is aspirational and only aspirational then He is not substantial. We will never know for sure whether or not God is substantial, although I have an argument that He is substantial as well as aspirational.

If we aspire to know God we need to ask why we do that? Is it because God is substantial, or only because aspiring to God boosts our ego? Or is it possible that God is substantial and has created us for the purpose of aspiring to know him up close and personal? These are the questions Blaise Pascal dealt with in such depth. He argued that proofs of God not being conclusive for some, they can only gamble that God exists or does not exist. The gamble is imperative. There is no other choice. If we gamble that God does not exist, and he does exist, we stand to lose everything. If we gamble that he does exist, and he does exist, we stand to gain everything.

Not if a god is omniscient. Meaning, if a god knows everything, they should be able to tell that you are "believing" in the god solely because of a logical calculation to avoid eternal damnation reserved for non-believers.

Which brings up a more disturbing issue, namely what does it say about a being infinitely more powerful than another who is so insecure, emotionally that it is going to react so spitefully (sending such insignificant beings to eternal damnation) because beings infinitely insignificant comparitively won't worship him? Do you personally care if an ant won't acknowledge that you are more powerful than they are? If not, your psyche sounds better put together than such a god's.

[Belindi]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

We agree that it's good to aspire towards the good God .

If God is aspirational and only aspirational then He is not substantial. We will never know for sure whether or not God is substantial, although I have an argument that He is substantial as well as aspirational.

If we aspire to know God we need to ask why we do that? Is it because God is substantial, or only because aspiring to God boosts our ego? Or is it possible that God is substantial and has created us for the purpose of aspiring to know him up close and personal? These are the questions Blaise Pascal dealt with in such depth. He argued that proofs of God not being conclusive for some, they can only gamble that God exists or does not exist. The gamble is imperative. There is no other choice. If we gamble that God does not exist, and he does exist, we stand to lose everything. If we gamble that he does exist, and he does exist, we stand to gain everything.

Not if a god is omniscient. Meaning, if a god knows everything, they should be able to tell that you are "believing" in the god solely because of a logical calculation to avoid eternal damnation reserved for non-believers.

Which brings up a more disturbing issue, namely what does it say about a being infinitely more powerful than another who is so insecure, emotionally that it is going to react so spitefully (sending such insignificant beings to eternal damnation) because beings infinitely insignificant comparitively won't worship him? Do you personally care if an ant won't acknowledge that you are more powerful than they are? If not, your psyche sounds better put together than such a god's.

Exodus 20. 5

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

The author of the above means that family and tribal cultures are powerful to transmit ideas from one generation to the next.



The meaning of the word 'jealous' has changed over the centuries. Even since one or two centuries ago some words have changed their meanings , as readers of antique novels will recognise.

[Charlemagne]

Yes, to know God we must aspire to know him. Those who do not aspire to know him will not know him. Desire is as fundamental to knowing truth as logic is. First we desire justice, then we aspire to using our brains to figure out how to get it.

We agree that it's good to aspire towards the good God .

If God is aspirational and only aspirational then He is not substantial. We will never know for sure whether or not God is substantial, although I have an argument that He is substantial as well as aspirational.

If we aspire to know God we need to ask why we do that? Is it because God is substantial, or only because aspiring to God boosts our ego? Or is it possible that God is substantial and has created us for the purpose of aspiring to know him up close and personal? These are the questions Blaise Pascal dealt with in such depth. He argued that proofs of God not being conclusive for some, they can only gamble that God exists or does not exist. The gamble is imperative. There is no other choice. If we gamble that God does not exist, and he does exist, we stand to lose everything. If we gamble that he does exist, and he does exist, we stand to gain everything.

Not if a god is omniscient. Meaning, if a god knows everything, they should be able to tell that you are "believing" in the god solely because of a logical calculation to avoid eternal damnation reserved for non-believers.

Which brings up a more disturbing issue, namely what does it say about a being infinitely more powerful than another who is so insecure, emotionally that it is going to react so spitefully (sending such insignificant beings to eternal damnation) because beings infinitely insignificant comparitively won't worship him? Do you personally care if an ant won't acknowledge that you are more powerful than they are? If not, your psyche sounds better put together than such a god's.

LuckyR,

That is one way to look at it. The other way is to see not that God is so insecure as to damns us (being God, why would he be insecure?) but that by rejecting him we are made insecure by damning ourselves.

[Sy Borg]

I hardly think that questioning the veracity of wild claims made in Abrahamic mythology is damning oneself. It's just being logical and reasonable.

[Charlemagne]

I hardly think that questioning the veracity of wild claims made in Abrahamic mythology is damning oneself. It's just being logical and reasonable.

It's common sense. If we reject God, and then discover after death that God exists, why should we be surprised that God has granted our preference to reject Him for all eternity? That is what hell should be, because actions have consequences. We wanted never to know God, so we end up in hell, where we will never know God up close and personal; even though we might know forever that our refusal to encounter God and grow in a loving relationship with God is the reason we are in hell.

[Sy Borg]

That is your imagination, Charlie. How do you discover that your male God exists after death when you have no mind, no awareness, no consciousness? Do you see your masculine deity in your deep sleep every night? Do you dream about him?

No, you would be oblivious, in deep sleep, just as you will be after death. Why do you think you will be more awake in death than in sleep? Oblivion is not bad - it's a state that each of us look forward to every night.

As for Pascal's Wager, which is basically the game you are playing here, a deity that is moronic enough to be fooled by humans feigning belief to get into heaven is a joke, nothing to be worshipped.

Heaven and hell are right here on Earth, in our emotions. I also note that some of the very most miserable and angry of people are theists.

Not believing in the Abrahamic's silly deities is about as much of a risk as not believing in Zeus and Odin. Believing in superstition, however, is far more of a risk.

[Consul]

That is your imagination, Charlie. How do you discover that your male God exists after death when you have no mind, no awareness, no consciousness? Do you see your masculine deity in your deep sleep every night? Do you dream about him?

A bodiless person or pure spirit is sexless, since sex is determined by biological/physiological characteristics, and a pure spirit doesn't have any such characteristics whatsoever; so the holy spirit might only be male or female by gender. But what does this mean? The god of monotheism is the only one of his kind, not living in a community or society of many deities, so his gender couldn't consist in a particular social role in a society of deities—the "female/feminine role"/"the male/masculine role". The gender of God could only consist in a particular state of mind: "the female/feminine mind/mentality"/"the male/masculine mind/mentality". But what exactly is it that makes a mind or a mentality (personality) female/feminine or male/masculine? I'm afraid any attempt to define gender in purely psychological terms ends up with an arbitrary list of (questionable) sexual stereotypes.

[Sy Borg]

That is your imagination, Charlie. How do you discover that your male God exists after death when you have no mind, no awareness, no consciousness? Do you see your masculine deity in your deep sleep every night? Do you dream about him?

A bodiless person or pure spirit is sexless, since sex is determined by biological/physiological characteristics, and a pure spirit doesn't have any such characteristics whatsoever; so the holy spirit might only be male or female by gender. But what does this mean? The god of monotheism is the only one of his kind, not living in a community or society of many deities, so his gender couldn't consist in a particular social role in a society of deities—the "female/feminine role"/"the male/masculine role". The gender of God could only consist in a particular state of mind: "the female/feminine mind/mentality"/"the male/masculine mind/mentality". But what exactly is it that makes a mind or a mentality (personality) female/feminine or male/masculine? I'm afraid any attempt to define gender in purely psychological terms ends up with an arbitrary list of (questionable) sexual stereotypes.

As you have nicely described, many Christians need God to be male, unable to bear the idea of having a female boss. I'm with you, a bodiless spirit can't have a gender, it is an "it". However, in the legends Santa is male and so is God.

There are many similarities between God and Santa Claus. A bearded old man who runs everything, who rewards and punishes as he sees fit. Basically, they are archetypes of ancient community leaders.

[Consul]

As you have nicely described, many Christians need God to be male, unable to bear the idea of having a female boss. I'm with you, a bodiless spirit can't have a gender, it is an "it".

Jesus qua God Incarnate is male.

[Sy Borg]

As you have nicely described, many Christians need God to be male, unable to bear the idea of having a female boss. I'm with you, a bodiless spirit can't have a gender, it is an "it".

Jesus qua God Incarnate is male.

Of course. An intersexed Jesus is not going to win a lot of fans, and a female Jesus is also less influential than a perfect alpha male. Ultimately, it's about marketing.