He wanted a good plot arc leading up to robots not just starting with robots right off the rip
Maybe we’re endowed with Godly emotions.
Projection?
I had a car that didn’t like when the weather was cold and damp. It wasn’t too happy about being parked on a slope, either.
Did the car actually have human emotions? No, of course not, but as a human it was both easy and natural to frame and process it that way.
Instead of it simply being “God made made in his own image”, the truth is probably that there’s more than a little of “man made God in his own image” too.
Yeah, all gods have been made by man.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity. For one thing, your car actually exists, even if its emotions do not. Also, believing that your car simply doesn’t like cold and damp weather is a rather harmless belief. For a person to believe that a god’s will reflects their personal wishes and desires is inherently dangerous. I’m not aware of anyone rationalizing hate crimes because they thought the car didn’t like a certain group of people.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity.
I’m not criticising.
People are welcome to follow a religion if they want to.
I know that I can no more disprove the existence of a god than prove the existence of one. I know that anybody doing something bad in the name of a god is either lying or being coerced.
removed by mod
I appreciate it might be hyperbole, but you’re advocating causing actual harm to people who find comfort in religion. Honestly, that sounds more psychotic.
I’m taking a guess here, based on your spelling (all those 'z’s) that you’re American. It’s probably worth me pointing out that the US has some pretty grotesque implementations of many religions, particularly Christianity - but they are a poor reflection of religion in general.
I’m not overly religious (didn’t even go to Church on Christmas!), but know a lot of good people are. If they find praying, attending services or reading the literature helps them get through life, I won’t argue against it.
removed by mod
Was this response meant for me?
If so, what do you want me to prove? That religion exists? I mean, it does - there are loads of them and the very oldest evidence of a prehistoric settlement is a temple complex, suggesting that religions have existed for over ten thousand years at least.
I’ve already said that the existence of a god can’t be proven or disproven.
The only thing I’m arguing with you about is letting people practice religion if they find comfort in doing so.
You’ve advocated institutionalising and using surgical techniques on people for their beliefs. And then called me mentally ill and a danger to society.
Neat. The guy’s argument with you has accidentally leaked into another community, with him replying to me and another poster with ad hominem attacks and desires to see us (who never mentioned religion) institutionalized.
removed by mod
This still sounds like violent conversion therapy. What an aweful, merciless god you make of yourself.
removed by mod
Whipping out my clover and putting on my best Irish Accent to explain the Holy Trinity
a better question is ‘the problem of evil’
if god is truly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
this is my favorite as the theistic hand-waving needing to resolve it is incredible from the start.
needing to resolve it
it’s not been resolved, despite millions of apologists dedicating their lives to the problem of evil for thousands of years
every discussion just ends up in “you need to have faith,” which literally just means “believe something to be true simply because you want it to be true, without any good reason.” and no, “because otherwise where did we come from” (god of the gaps–another fallacy that seems to be the best they can come up with) isn’t a good reason
I mean there are some who claim to have solved it. You see, you have to have evil to understand good. Since they think their god is the ultimate good, the more evil you see just proves how good their god is. After all, how can you consider a stick straight if you don’t have a crooked one to compare it to?
This is exactly why I believe in an evil god. The problem of good is then easily solved. All that good in the world just proves how truly evil my god is. Burn in hell you sinners… although his punishments might be good? Cause he’s evil. I dunno. Trust me it works. Just have faith.
Religion would make sense to me if it reverted back to polytheism… This monotheistic update was a garbage idea.
Polytheism feels like a superior theological model that is actually evidence based… For example, the personalities of the Greek gods were characterizations of which they were gods. This is also true with the Spirits in Native American religion. They were supernatural based on the natural.
I feel like Monotheistic religions rely on blind faith partly because of the evil problem. One god is supposed to be all powerful, one god is supposed to be omniscient, one god is supposed to be revered; but this means that the one god must be evil and good. Monotheism would make a lot more sense if they can all just collectively accept the notion they worship a neutral entity, not a good entity. Unfortunately, that doesn’t sound captivating enough, so instead, “the evil problem” continues.
Why would you come to someone’s question, not engaging with the question in the slightest, to say “my thing is better”?
questions about god, which is commonly defined as “perfect in every possible way” are irrelevant when it’s been demonstrated that god, by that definition, doesn’t exist
god didn’t “give” people emotions. people evolved that way
omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good)
Part of the problem with “The Problem of Evil” is assuming your personal experience turning sour is a sign of an existential “evil”. Take this to a macro-level of the natural world and you can argue the wolf eating the sheep is “evil”. And the sheep eating the grass is “evil”. And the grass polluting our air with coercive oxygen is “evil”. But then you’re in the position of arguing that existence is evil, which flies in the face of the Abrahamic assumptions of creation.
Does your single bad day refute the eternal existence of the Perfect Being? Does your pessimistic view of the natural order refute a Perfect Being? Or is the problem entirely with your personal limited perception and selfish worldview?
it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
It seems logically impossible to define “evil” objectively. You’re coming into the conversation as an ill-informed and deeply biased observer.
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat? Is the spider evil for killing the fly? Is the rabbit evil for killing the spider? Are you evil for killing the rabbit? Well, then why are you complaining about the fly spoiling your dinner?
Humans seem to define evil merely as unpleasantness, as though “pleasant” and “good” are synonymous. But if you just want to feel pleasant all the time, we’ve got a tool for that. It’s called heroin. Shoot up until you waste away and then tell me that God Is Great, because you’ve lost the ability to perceive your misery. Your actions will be perfectly predictable and your behaviors extremely pliable, while your sensations are entirely blissful. Is this the Divine Perfection you’re looking for?
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat?..
No, as these are things they must do to survive.
However, if these creatures were designed by a creator in such a way that they had to perform “evil” to survive, then they are innocent and the creator is evil.
No, as these are things they must do to survive.
If you really want to get to the nut of “The Problem of Evil”, you get into how many acts of personal survival impinge on the welfare of others.
However, if these creatures were designed by a creator in such a way that they had to perform “evil” to survive, then they are innocent and the creator is evil.
And if there is no Prime Designer? Does that mean they are evil by their nature?
Again, we’re hand-waving the term “evil”. One of the biggest problems of The Problem of Evil is defining evil. Because, God or No God, what we’re headed towards is a very nihilist philosophy of existence itself being a malicious force.
I don’t understand why a god would have to be all good as humans understand goodness. I’m more open to the idea that God either set things in motion and stopped caring, or is actively ambivalent and lives to cause a ruckus on occasion for his entertainment. This view allows for the existence of preventable evil.
Because an uncaring or immoral god is unworthy of praise or devotion. Why donate your life or your fortune to a god that created the universe and then fucked off?
And allows for free will.
That side is definitely the most interesting, but the reverse side of the Problem of Evil is interesting too: if there is no god/God, then why do we call things evil. How can we apply some objective morality if everything is random and subjective?
There are good and interesting arguments related to evolution creating a sense of common morality, like an instinct, to drive behavior that is beneficial to the continuation of the species and a bloodline. But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a ‘survival of the fittest’ framework.
Like I said, at the very least it is interesting
But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a ‘survival of the fittest’ framework.
I’m curious, have any examples?
Being kind and giving extra resources to those with disabilities, and to some degree even those of lower status. In theory, pure evolution should operate selfishly (more for me less for you) most of the time and even a more complex evolutionary pressure that seeks the benefit of the species vs the individual. There’s no benefit to caring for and giving resources to those who can’t or objectively (again, to from a pure genetics perspective l shouldn’t be allowed to breed. But morally, as a society, we care extra for them, not less. Anyone who wants to be rid of or take from those unfortunates are (rightly) considered sociopaths.
why should he or she be beyond that?
It’s all made up by humans
Is there proof of a god like at all? Who tf is this mf. Also god caused your misfortune so asking him to help is counterproductive
I mean the creation of the universe and the beginning of life are the two big ones, among others. That said you can’t have scientific proof for or against a supreme being specifically because the sort of questions you’d ask to confirm or deny the existence of one don’t intersect with modern science.
If you believe God created this place, literally everything is proof of God. It’s hard to explain a good one, and particularly one that is both good and interventionalist, but the whole “God created it and left it to rot” idea one can kinda understand the appeal of. It’s hard to imagine how this all just popped out of nowhere.
Of course, it solves nothing, as you just shift the problem over to God. But that’s besides the point.
I think the religions that allow for multiple and often flawed gods seem easier to believe in, but if you’ve been taught to believe in some Yahweh spin-off I try not to judge to harshly.
Because main evolved advantageous uses for emotion. We cry, and no longer have to communicate with words that something is wrong. It is advantageous to us to be able to communicate with emotions in more than a vocal manner. Things make more sense when we consider the real reasons they came into being. “We” have probably had these emotions for far longer than we could be considered humans.
Perfection is a malleable thing. To Christians humans are made in gods image, including emotions. In the minds of people they only think of the emotions that are reflected by god as the positive ones; like caring, empathy, love, ect. But if you take into account that god made everything it is reasonable to say that god gave us the negative emotions as well, since Satan (gods creation) harbored these feelings when it made Adam and eve sin in the garden of eden. Even if god only has positive emotion it does have emotion.
Christian theologians believe in the impassibility of God, which means that God does not have emotions as humans do. Then biblical texts where emotions are attributed to God are explained as anthropomorphism - God using human language to communicate his nature and actions.
This is the answer or similar enough I got when I was Catholic
How the hell do they explain his “love” then? Seems like they create more problems than they fix with this crap.
“Love” in the scriptures is typically a verb, e.g., “God so loved the world…” It describes an action that God does, not a feeling. God’s love is his acting in a loving way towards undeserving people.
Exactly, that’s a perfectly theologian explanation, it sounds good, but doesn’t stand the least bit of scrutiny.
Already the creation story on the first pages says god created light and saw the light is good. How is it good without subjective emotion?
How exactly are gods emotions supposed to be different. Does good mean something different to god?Religion is nothing but worthless bullshit from start till end.
To play gods advocate, good isn’t an emotion. Good is a state of being, that could be defined and then other things can be judged by that definition to be good or not.
Subjective? Sure. But no emotion needed for subjectivity.
And to answer your rhetorical question: yes, they define it by god likes it equals it being good. Which is just the ultimate dictatorship, but Christians probably wouldn’t even disagree with that notion, since that is exactly what is written in the Bible.
The answer differs depending on which religion/sect/philosophy you adhere to, but God is usually attributed some sort of emotion, or at least a will, because without it the belief in God can’t serve a societal use.
Say you assume a God without emotions. From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless… So your belief can’t be a religion; nor can it be used to control people. There’s no physical use to preaching belief in God, and not much of a metaphysical need either since God doesn’t care whether you believe in them. “God” becomes a concept like the laws of physics, there’s not even much meaning in considering it as a being. There’s little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all. So all religions will personify God to some extent.
From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless…
That’s not entirely true. You’re describing what is effectively Calvinism (also, Hinduism/Buddhism) wherein you are born into a particular state of grace (or absence of it) and you just have to play the hand you’re dealt because its “part of the plan”. If you are aware of God, that’s a kind of blessing in its own right. But its like being aware of a political head of state or a famous historical figure. Knowing they exist can give you insight into how to live your life, but they don’t fundamentally know or care that you exist and you don’t impact their grandeur in any meaningful way.
There’s little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all.
There’s a huge difference, in the same way there’s a difference between a Law of Physics and No Law.
Understanding physics allows me to live relatively safely compared to someone who is totally unfamiliar with how conductivity or gravity or momentum works. Understanding spirituality will (presumably) serve the same effect. Spiritual enlightenment affords you a way of avoiding certain hazards, like not holding a big metal rod above you in a storm or leaping into the ocean without a buoy. Ritual and prayer becomes like a car’s safety belt and air bags, cushioning you from the psychic trauma of daily life and protecting you from malicious spiritual entities.
There’s also a host of spiritual intermediaries in the more esoteric faiths. Catholicism has its saints and angels, while Islam and Judaism has the prophets. Animist religions have spirits of the land and the animals. Pagan faiths have their pantheons and demigods. And they’ve all got their terrestrial spiritual adversaries - demons, heretics, the acolytes of rival deities, etc.
Why am I praying to ward off evil spirits if there are none? Why am I wearing these vestments and holy symbols to insulate me against “evil” radiation or bad juju? Why am I going on these crusades if I don’t think capturing the Holy Land has any benefit for my nation or clan?
You don’t have to believe in a “Personal Jesus” to believe in the consequences of a God or a Godly World. Sometimes its just Metaphysical Capture the Flag.
Calvinism still has a notion of divine will, even if there’s no divine judgement. Maybe the notion of “will” can be dissociated from the notion of “feeling”, but that’d be a debate in itself, I personally tend to think that it can’t: Awareness can only indicate what is, not what should be.
As for all the religions with an intermediate between God and men, either they represent God’s will… In which case, God does have a will; either they have their own will. And this just displaces the question, because if God has no will but his angels do, then the angels are effectively the Gods: They’re the ones whose favour prayers are supposed to get.
Also, when I mention the “societal use” of a religion, what I mean isn’t how the religion is useful to the believer, but how it makes the believer useful to the state and/or clergy. My point was that religion with a personalized God who directly judge human actions tend to dominate because they’re most useful as tools to influence people’s actions.
Human is created in God’s image.
Therefore human emotions are similar to God’s emotions (this does not tell whether or not God’s emotions are superior in some way or other)
It’s all made up buddy
The answer depends on your religion, but in the monotheistic traditions of the major religions, the notion of God might be better aligned with “oneness” or “integration” than a personification as we think about them. In that way, God is “everything” (including the contradictions) which would also mean emotions. To say God feels things, it means “God has the capability to feel, because God is all powerful.”
Whether God is impacted by those emotions or their reasoning changes because of them, I think the realities and contradictions are a part of faith. If it all made sense, faith wouldn’t be necessary. You’ll find reasoning similar to this in someone like Kierkegaard.
I’m a UU (raised Catholic, was an atheist for 20 years, followed Buddhism for a few years). My internal conception of God has changed a lot over that time: mostly expanded and includes more grace about this “grand everything” rather than “Old man in a cloud who can be sorta weird and spiteful.” I like that the UU lets me ask questions and develop my own faith.
Most importantly is to ask why is he subject to time? Our only concept of existing or being alive is tied to time: thought is a change of state, and change is defined by a progression of time. But if God is everything, why is he subject to time? What’s “outside” time?
