Is God Important?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Arguments like the cosmological and the fine-tuning do not get us to a God that cares for humanity; and the problem of evil and suffering and the problem of divine hiddenness point to the contrary.

There are many more arguments for God’s existence, but none are widely thought to be convincing.

Nevertheless, suppose there is some probability that God - a perfect being - exists. It could be 50%, it could be 20%, it could be 5%.

Most people will grant that much, unless they think the concept of a perfect being is incoherent.

But suppose it is not, and then we ask ourselves, how significant is that being, if it exists? How important or valuable or great? The answer must be, infinitely significant; absolutely important.

Suppose we multiply that importance by its probability of existence: What is 20% times infinity? What is 5% times infinity? It is still infinity.

This leads to the counterintuitive suggestion that one can regard God as infinitely important and at the same time hold that God probably doesn’t exist.

Yet I never hear anyone holding this view. People either say to hell with God, or they have a personal relationship with God, or they are undecided about God.

I can’t recall anyone directly and explicitly defending God by saying God is important regardless of whether we have good grounds for believing in God. Pascal’s Wager comes to mind, but this is not exactly an argument for heavenly benefits; just a case for not dismissing a highly significant possibility.

As far as “which God”, the answer would be - every kind of God that qualifies as a perfect being.

Is there something unreasonable about this novel suggestion?

2

When I was more atheistic than agnostic in my youth, it never made sense to me how unbelievers can claim that ‘God’ if-He-didn’t-exist is unimportant. Because politically, religiously, socially, historically, obviously the power of masses of people believing in God is essential to human life and the past. Whether everybody stopped believing today, or not, doesn’t change the fact that so many believed in ‘God’ for so long.

Why would they do that? What was/is their motivation?

That alone should force Atheists and non-believers into line. At the very least, as an Atheist, you need to confront the issue of mass-belief. You need to address the matter of the masses, Quantity > Quality, Mob-mentality and Group-think. “We live in a Society.” Thus, whether an individual “believes in God” is irrelevant to the overall effect of most people believing in this God-Deity-Perfect-Being, most of the time.

The Effect (of God-belief) is real. It is daily. It is motivational. And many people are willing to live and die around the belief. It is the purpose, meaning, and cause of most peoples’ lives.

3

[Quote=“Keep_Relentless”]This leads to the counterintuitive suggestion that one can regard God as infinitely important and at the same time hold that God probably doesn’t exist.

Yet I never hear anyone holding this view.[quote/]

Jordan Peterson holds that view. But he is an excruciatingly fucked up mind.

In any case, I think despite the blind science-worshipping modern cult world we live in, I find it painfully ironic and darkly humorous, that the idea of god still cannot, under any circumstances of reason and logic, be cast off. Kind of tells you alot about how primitive and superstitious humanity is and always will be.

Truth isn’t something the world cares about. It cares about finding the best placebo to feel ok about dying and becoming nothing in a cosmic void.

4

Peterson is a pragmatist and so he has a lot of trouble talking about whether Christianity is literally true because he thinks it’s so useful. He once said it would take 40 hours to answer whether Jesus resurrected.

I am not a pragmatist nor will I take 40 hours: The disciples saw visions/hallucinations of Jesus after his death, plus the body was either stolen or not put in a tomb to begin with, so they genuinely believed he rose from the dead and they convinced a lot of people. Or at the very least, this account of things is plausible enough that the resurrection story can in no way be regarded as proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. What is written in the Bible was written decades after the fact and is not internally consistent.

The OP says only there might be a God… who might have mysterious reasons for this tragic and somewhat macabre reality… … and, although the “maybe” does seem somewhat weak, perhaps the mere possibility is worth approaching with an open mind.

5

Wrong post - no formatting

6

My problem with this approach is that you disregard any number of alternatives to the current Abrahamic line, as well as alternatives to what the church claimed was “divine providence.”

There is increasing evidence that the patriarchal order of Christianity was finally enforced by the Roman church, whereas the role of women according to Jesus and even Paul is intentionally underplayed, except as doting and obedient followers. The egalitarian church of Paul is undermined by letters attributed to him speaking against the role of women as leaders.

The importance of this is in the fact that the ‘divine’ is witnessed when love and compassion rules the church, which is seen as God working through the followers of Christ (not the believers in Christ). It is then that the church becomes deified in the view of the early Christians. So, we are not talking about an entity ‘on high’ but the divine influence active in disciples.

It is a highly practical aspect of religious life that is devoid of highfalutin ideas of Jesus as the uniquely incarnate son of God. All human beings, in that they allow themselves to be instruments of divine love, are children of God according to this vision. It aligns with the Old Testament idea that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is the people of Israel. For Jesus, it held the promise of being ‘salt of the earth’ and ‘light of the world’.

God is one, just as we are called to be one in a transcendent unity that defends truth, beauty and goodness by embodying it. The fruits of the spirit, namely the effects of embodying that love, are what there is no law against. I believe that it has a great deal to do with the patriarchy taking over the church and denying the feminine perspective.

If you are stuck with a materialist and dualist view, you can’t imagine that humanity’s fault is that it fails to realise that it is one with God and attempts to live according to its short-term perspectives. The prodigal son demonstrates that he was a son all the while he was wayward, and when he returns, he is immediately given a son’s ring, whereas the brother (the pious community) reckons that his deeds are what makes him a son of the father. No, we are always children of God.

Of course, these are all parables to explain a maxim: “Know thyself!” Know what you are and behave accordingly. It isn’t about some perfect being floating around somewhere, but the fact that God is the Unity. He is One with us all. There is no “other”, but he/she is just like you, no matter what they look like, what stations in life they hold, or how rich or poor they are. Jesus just points out that rich people have an increased difficulty in accepting that there is no hierarchy in God.

Perfect in the way the bible uses the word is about being complete. To be complete, we need to rejoin the divine Unity that is God and to which we all belong. That is why our enemies are to be loved, because they are missing the point as much as we are. According to this understanding, God wants us all back in the fold, and Jesus is typified as the Shepherd who guides us back to safety.

1 Like
7

Hey Bob,

Would you say that Jesus’ teachings about the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven are not in any way meant to be a metaphysical theory? That it is a means to teach us how to live, and he did not literally think the apocalypse was nigh?

One could ask a similar question about Buddha; did he mean karma and reincarnation to be taken literally, or was this a means for him to convey how to live from within his cultural paradigm?

The way I have presented God in the OP, God is not a metaphor or a life lesson, but a being that has certain qualities that make it supremely good, a being that either literally exists or does not. In the context of spiritual truths this may indeed be the wrong question to ask, as it pertains to metaphysical speculation rather than how to treat each other; and yet here it is my window into the discussion.

8

Hey Bob,

Would you say that Jesus’ teachings about the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven are not in any way meant to be a metaphysical theory? That it is a means to teach us how to live, and he did not literally think the apocalypse was nigh?

One could ask a similar question about Buddha; did he mean karma and reincarnation to be taken literally, or was this a means for him to convey how to live from within his cultural paradigm?

The way I have presented God in the OP, God is not a metaphor or a life lesson, but a being that has certain qualities that make it supremely good, a being that either literally exists or does not. In the context of spiritual truths this may indeed be the wrong question to ask, as it pertains to metaphysical speculation rather than how to treat each other; and yet here it is my window into the discussion.

I can’t answer your question except in the following way:

The reality we inhabit is a profound mystery that we strive to understand as we move through life’s unfolding chapters. However, only a fortunate few have the opportunity or capacity to pause and reflect deeply on its true nature. From birth, we enter a world shaped by inherited traditions and social structures where values and principles take on meaning and are expressed in countless ways. This framework, rooted in collective memory, was particularly evident and revered in ancient times.

Meditation has long served as a profound tool for introspection and a sacred gateway to self-awareness. Through contemplative practice, ancient sages realised that at the core of our consciousness lies a luminous awareness — an ever-watchful presence that observes every action, word and thought without judgement. They understood that the physical body is animated by something elusive and intangible, akin to the movement of the wind: a spirit or life force that cannot be grasped, but whose presence can be felt. This dynamic essence breathes life into the body, and when it departs, the body ceases to function and dies.

From the earliest epochs of human thought came the belief that all existence is permeated by a living energy — a mysterious vibration that not only animates the vast cosmos, but also the tiniest spark within each of us. This animating force was recognised as not merely external, but deeply internal — residing within the core of every being. With this clarity came the profound insight that this energy is not fragmented, but fundamentally ONE. Across cultures and eras, countless stories and myths have been woven to illustrate this unity. Though these narratives differ, the underlying principle remains consistent.

Yet despite this primordial understanding, humanity has become easily distracted by the allure of power, wealth and fame. We embraced tales of heroes and villains, of us versus them, and of divisions between inside and outside and above and below, splintering reality into opposing halves. In doing so, we lost sight of the primal truth that all things are interconnected and originate from a single source beyond our immediate perception. We clung desperately to the fleeting and impermanent, mistaking transient roles and achievements as the measure of our belonging to this oneness. However, the deeper truth transcends such superficial distinctions: we are not merely part of the ONE; we are the ONE itself, manifested in countless forms and expressions.

By rediscovering this unity within and beyond us, we can open the door to a more harmonious existence, where division dissolves and the silent awareness at the heart of being can illuminate the path forward. The unity is as much a myth as it can be a living reality. We try to distinguish between the two, but they are ONE.

Our problem remains that we do not take the time to answer the question: Who am I when all my façade breaks down and the act I have been putting on is no longer sustainable? The answer is that you are a child of the ONE.

9

This is debatable. Every part of it. The case is actually stronger than you have presented.

10

Wouldn’t you say a supreme good in fact pertains to how to treat each other… or else it isn’t the supreme good?

11

The case for the missing body is explained by the thesis that the disciples didn’t want the body paraded around and was put somewhere else, and that the resurrection was assumed from tradition.

12

Billions of people have thought so. It is endlessly debated.

Paul wrote that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once. In the Gospels you find he ate and drank with the disciples, they touched his wounds. They watched him ascend to heaven.

The question, though, is why believe these accounts? Is this testimony sufficient evidence that a man rose from the dead?

I’m not speaking as someone who never cared for Christianity or took it seriously… I got baptized as an adult, I was sure I felt the Holy Spirit, I participated in Catholic initiation and went from church to church, different denominations over years… I slowly formed a conviction that Christianity does not represent Jesus very well… If I speak flippantly about Christianity it may reflect that personal annoyance.

Is God involved every time we do something good? In that case yes. Some understand God as deistic and hands-off. I was reading about Aristotle, he said God would only think about itself, because it would only think about the greatest thing…

13

The sources for the resurrection appearances are too early for it to be assumed from tradition & the witnesses were still alive to dispute those sources when they were written & circulated.

What & how early is your source for the disciples saying they didn’t want the body paraded around? The actual practice they were preventing was the Romans leaving the crucified & body still on the cross on High (Passover) Sabbath (they would leave the bodies longer than that, obv).

Also… The preparations they made for burial all reflect they did not expect a resurrection. Why would that (& other details which make them look foolish) be included in a mere (fabricated, augmented) tradition?

There are other “theories” that all run into similar problems (the problems mentioned here are also not exhaustive).

14

Why believe any account from an ancient document? What do secular historians consider acceptable criteria for that? I really like this book called Cold Case Christianity, and I would love to explore it with you in a book study in this group if you would like.

Some are empowered when we think about it as drawing from the good that God is whenever we treat the other as self the way he did when he switched perspectives with us on the cross. …which is a doing and not just a thinking (which is a pre-doing or post-doing… but God is… all doing and no mere thinking).

15

The topic is at minimum funny, at maximum provocative. Therefore, I will give a criterion for evaluating posts.

  1. A reasonable and knowledgeable person will easily give a definition of who God is.

  2. People degraded by faith to the level of animals will bleat about what God should be according to their faith, but will not be able to write specifically who God is.

That’s why the question is for the author: What do you need? The bleating of animals? Or the answer of a reasonable person? Who is God, and only then, why is He the way He is.

16

The biblical definition of god, omnipotent, omniscient, all good..

is equating to wisdom.

Wisdom, is god and it can be found, in all things. It is god in it’s relation to human consciousness, the first religious works was man exploring pysche and consciousness by externalization. They externalized wisdom and it’s relation to consciousness/reality itself as god.

Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge, knowledge is power therefore wisdom is all powerful.

Wisdom cannot be both good and evil, so if ignorance is the root/stem of all evil as was said in history, then wisdom is all good.

Wisdom is knowing itself, therefore wisdom is all knowing.

It meets all three levels of criteria to be defined as god, and not only that but it is everywhere and in everything one will ever come across as either absolute understandings we can attain or infinite broader understandings we may never reach in our life.

So yes, i’d argue that god is important. But it depends on which lens you use to view the first religious doctrine, your interpretation of it and your relationship with god as you define it. I personally define it as Wisdom, so to me yes it is very important.. and I think objectively my point here makes a lot more sense than what is the majority defining or interpretation of god as a man in the sky from a too-literal perspective.

There have been many gods through out history… but wisdom, can put on any face it wants to, the key to an understanding, to being taught, is criticism… so wisdom and god can put on a face of anything one is humble to, because learning requires humility.

1 Like
17

The question is, though, what did they understand as “resurrection”? Prophets have been said to have gone straight to God as a reward for their faithfulness.

There have always been stories about charismatic leaders not having died or survived what had been assumed to be fatal, and the stories we have are vague enough to suggest a different understanding than bodily resurrection.

The story, which is often used as “proof”, is the incident with Thomas, but there is also the suggestion that the “doubting Thomas” story was made to undermine the influence of a Gospel attributed to him.

18

There is definitely truth in this. Although the idea that God is in all of us is another version that suggests a different kind of panentheism, where God is in everything but also transcends everything. Wisdom would then arise where we recognise our source of being and align with it.

Wisdom is often distinguished from mere knowledge by its emphasis on the thoughtful, ethical and effective application of knowledge rather than its mere accumulation or understanding. In other words, wisdom involves discerning how, when and why to apply knowledge to promote well-being, insight and good judgement. This practical, context-sensitive application of knowledge is what many consider to be the essence of true wisdom.

The problem of evil seems to be that we are able to handle against wisdom and indeed, power is famously an opposite of wisdom, with a suggested ideal being the “wise warrior” that combines both – but is seldom seen.

It doesn’t fit omnipotence, because wisdom must be applied and is often thwarted by power despite being a potential in all of us. If we were to discover our inherent unity in the One, and work together, then wisdom could move mountains.

19

I think you, @Keep_Relentless & I should all study “cold case Christianity“ together. I’m not sure this thread is the appropriate place for that. If either of you (or anyone else) are interested, let me know when you’ve grabbed a copy. Feel free to initiate the discussion once you get into the book, or let me know if you’d prefer I begin the discussion.

20

“I slowly formed a conviction that Christianity does not represent Jesus very well”

Even without the countless arguments against that god’s existence, that revelation should have been enough to rid you of it once and for all.

There are those who will form the conviction that you and your ism doesn’t represent jesus very well… and there would be no way to know who was right.

The clue is the number of denominations of that religion. How is it possible? It’s possible because biblical language is so obscure and ambiguous. If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be so much disagreement regarding jesus and whatever else is in that fantasy novel.

Another thing to consider. Would an intelligent god that wanted to be believed in create as evidence for his existence a type of person we would ordinarily refer to a homeless shelter for mentally disabled people? And worse… not stop with just one. Bring another one around a little later (call em Mohammed) and make him disagree with the first one he sent so they all start killing each other.

C’mon, man. I mean, i ain’t tryna hate on your philosophy and all that (this is a forum for it)… but C’MON MAN.