God is silly

[system]

Not to ignore the rest of the posts but I just can’t read all this in one sitting.

Anyway the rest is mostly for Pax Vitae if you’re interested in saving some time.

If you want to look at this logically, it’s seems a little illogical to assume perfection when in fact you find it so hard to believe that is the case. It would make more sense to assume a very powerful albeit imperfect being. I believe there is the possibility of a creator but not a perfect one. It can be argued that we are unable to understand what perfection is and also the ways of perfection. But still this is not a reason to believe God is perfect. All our assumptions about God come from our own ignorance on the subject, so in reality come from our intuition.

Actually my point was to prove gods imperfection but it appears that the general belief around here is that he is infact not perfect. So that defeats the point of bringing up the points in the first place. I don’t believe god is perfect. I believe he’s powerful and imperfect like you said. Or an ass like I said.

I meant this to mean, we create what we want God to be. Lets say a creator created us. How do we know what attributes to assign him? Once we assign him these values, can we check to see if we are correct? If we strip everything away from what most people would define God as, the only thing we’re left with is life. Personally, the only solid evidence of a creator or God comes from this fact, that we exist, so therefore something brought us into existence. If what brought us into existence also created everything else in the world around us, would it be then fair to judge the creator based off his creations? The first weakness is that I’m assuming that at one point the universe didn’t exist. The big bang theory currently supports the idea of creation. But this doesn’t rule out the small possibility of a scientific discovery in the future that could make the big bang theory obsolete; so therefore disprove our current proof of creation.

I was more attacking the traditional belief of god. Not my belief of god. I didn’t assign those characteristics to him. Others did and I don’t agree. Hence the arguement.

Emotions can send us messages demanding that we listen to them now. But we must learn to live in harmony with them and not let them rule us, nor allow our intellect to rule them.

So basically you could’ve said controll your urges? But that’s not really true happiness. That’s just controlling your happiness. Finding a mid point to settle on. How would you define true happiness?

[Pax_Vitae]

@guest

So basically you could’ve said controll your urges? But that’s not really true happiness. That’s just controlling your happiness. Finding a mid point to settle on. How would you define true happiness?

Happiness is the culmination of two powerful forces, Emotion & Intellect. There’s no true happiness as people like to believe. Happiness is a spontaneous feeling that can come just as quickly as it goes. Contentment, or a general feeling of well-being is a more stable and attainable long term feeling. Here is a one topic I found interesting on the subject, Why Is One Happy? (An Analysis).

There are two types of happiness, short-term, and long-term. An example of short-term: “I had loads of this lovely cake last night, I really enjoyed it. But I must have put on about 2 pounds from eating it.” Their goes my happiness, as now I’m worrying about losing those 2 pounds I’ve just gained. Or “I bought a really cool pair of shoes, I just couldn’t help myself, they cost me $150.” But now I can’t wear them out on Friday night, as I don’t have the money to entertain myself.

While long-term happiness, or as I would call it more accurately, Contentment. “I spend the last 2 years saving my money, it was hard at times and not so much fun. But I now have enough money to by a nice house. I’m so happy now that I can call this place home. I’ve achieved something I can be really proud of.” Or like the cake example. “I had a lovely slice of cake last night, I was offered more, but I didn’t take it as it was very fattening. But I’m looking forward to having some more in the future.”

Temperance, control is essential for happiness. Short-term happiness comes from listing to our emotions. But then our intellect thinks about what we’ve done, and if it doesn’t like it, it makes us upset. My point is finding the balance between emotional happiness and intellectual happiness. When you have both of these you are content and satisfied. If you spend too much time listening to your emotions you’ll have a roller coaster ride of happy – sad – happy – sad. While if you listen to the intellect you’ll end up with a somewhat boring life where not much happens. So it’s about engaging both an Emotional and Intellectual life, controlling them so you have a stable and content ride. Life will always have its lows and it will have its highs. Then when you look back over it, it’s about being able to remember what you’ve done and be happy with the outcome.

[icecreme98]

I must say, I’ve enjoyed this thread and the ideas brought up in it. I think Pax hit the target on true hapiness and contentment.

@Logo

The initial state of Adam and Eve represent innocence. They knew no evil, of course.

Exactly. They didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong because they didn’t know what “wrong” was. So how can you hold them responsible? And how can you say they made a free decision when they didn’t even know what they were choosing?

I dunno. God told Adam that he would positively die if he disobeyed God and ate the fruit. Now, I’m no genious, but if I were in Adam’s position it would sound to me that dying would be a bad thing and that choosing the fruit would be considered “wrong”. The fact that Eve ate the fruit is irrelevent, because it wasn’t until “Adam” ate the fruit that sin entered the world. Interestingly, Adam thought God’s command was important enough, that he relayed the message to Eve sometime after she was created. Also, I see no proof that Adam had any reason to not trust God. Adam spent at least 28 yrs (and counting) alone, with God being the only one to talk to. I’m sure they became real close just like any child would with their parent.

With that said, if I were in Adam’s position, I would still have eaten the fruit. And here’s why:
After being alone in a garden for 28+ yrs and all of a sudden you’ve got this beautiful creature (heck, with no one to compare her to, she coulda looked like Rosanne for all we know, but that’s besides the point) who compliments you not only physically, but mentally and emotionally. So much so that it brings you to say: “This is at last, bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” And then she does something that you wholeheartedly believe she will die for. Even if God created another woman who was better, she still wouldn’t be “Eve”. I would have chosen death also, instead of living forever without the woman I love, because life wouldn’t have been worth living without her. But that’s just me.

Course, who knows if God would have killed Eve or not if Adam had still obeyed. It was all about relying on God.

Another scenario that comes to mind is perhaps, (with God’s command of death for those who eat the fruit in mind) Adam sees Eve eating the fruit and she’s still alive Most likely that puts doubt in Adam’s mind that God was lying and that he too would be fine if he ate as well.

• Whether God meant that they would die in that very day, spiritually, alienated from God the source of life; or physically their bodies started to slowly “die”; or as Peter mentioned, one day to God is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. And since Adam died at the age of 930, he still died within God’s “day”. Either way, God wasn’t fooling around.

[Skeptic]

@icecreme

The fact that Eve ate the fruit is irrelevent, because it wasn’t until “Adam” ate the fruit that sin entered the world.

This is the level of Christian belief and logic that I cannot grasp. (icecreme this is not an attack on you, just the Christian concept of the first sin in general.) Why is it irrevelent that Eve ate the fruit? She ate and disobeyed, so wasn’t that the original sin? Why is her sin irrevelent? These are the kind of things that can only makes sense to Christians who are unwilling to take a step back and reevaluate the possibility that it’s all a bunch of nonsense.

It’s so frusterating! Many of my friends are Christians so I often debate with them; however, if they can’t even think logically enough to recognize the ridicule of such a notion, how can I expect to get anywhere in a debate with them. It’s like talking to a crazy person!

Sorry for the rant! I will join the conversation with more to say when I get a chance.

[system]

Here’s my personal take. Yes god is silly, and the reason he “make life” is because god is bored as heck.

Imagine this: if you created everything, knows everything you created, knows everything that has happened, and will happen, wouldn’t you be bored as heck?

So what does god do? He says hmmm… I wonder how this little thing I created here would perceive the other things I created. I know, I’ll view my creations from this little thing’s perspective, that should be interesting. I’ll just give it a little push to start, and observe how it evolves. But I’ll give it hints along the way so it’ll figure things out in the end. If it makes the right choices I’ll reward it, if not then I’ll give it hints to turn the right way.

---