Godless PM

[loCAtek]

Australia’s new UNELECTED Prime Minister has revealed she does not believe in God.

Fixed that for you.

[Andrew D]

Spare me impossibilities. They're grade school.

No, they're not. On the contrary, they pose (among other things) an essential question (or a question whose answer is essential): If something is impossible, what is it that makes that thing impossible?

A standard answer is that even God cannot do something which is inherently impossible, as distinct from conditionally impossible. I cannot flap my arms and fly to the moon, because various principles of gravity, lift, etc., make it impossible for me to do so. But it is generally accepted that the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God is perfectly capable of dispensing with those various principles. OK; so much for the conditionally impossible.

But the (assertedly) inherently impossible things present more difficult problems. God cannot destroy itself, because it is contrary to the nature of God to be destructible. (Another way, it is inherent in the nature of God to be indestructible.) So what is it that makes it so that God is indestructible? And if God cannot supersede its own indestructibility, does not the true omnipotence reside in that thing which limits God's power -- that thing which makes it so that God is indestructible?

These are serious -- not "grade school" -- questions. They go to the very heart of the nature of God (assuming that there is a God). And they go, if we follow the reasoning underlying whatever the answers may be, to the very heart of the nature of the (incomprehensible) universe in which we find ourselves. And they go, if we follow that reasoning even further, to the very heart of the nature of what we are.

Jewish and Christian and Islamic theological scholars have wrestled with these questions for centuries. The predominant result of that wrestling has been to dismiss them. Why? Because they cannot answer them.

[Crackpot]

And they're wrestling with the "Can God make a Rock so big that even He can't lift it?" question too I'm sure.

[Gob]

But why choose a god at all?

Surely any omnipotent being would not require faith?

[loCAtek]

Not faith, but love. Hope, faith is but a step towards it.

[Gob]

Again, why would an omnipotent being require any of those human emotions to be offered towards it?

[Andrew D]

In full,

And they're wrestling with the "Can God make a Rock so big that even He can't lift it?" question too I'm sure.

Another of the numerous questions that present serious issues, even though Judeo-Christo-Islamic thinkers have for centuries tried to brush them off. Such questions go to the very heart of the nature of God (assuming that there is a God). And they go, if we follow the reasoning underlying whatever the answers may be, to the very heart of the nature of the (incomprehensible) universe in which we find ourselves. And they go, if we follow that reasoning even further, to the very heart of the nature of what we are.

And we see before us yet another of the innumerable Judeo-Christo-Islamic retreats in the face of reason: If you can't answer questions, just roll your eyes at them and hope that no one notices the total absence of answers.

[Andrew D]

But why choose a god at all?

Surely any omnipotent being would not require faith?

Not faith, but love. Hope, faith is but a step towards it.

Again, why would an omnipotent being require any of those human emotions to be offered towards it?

Perhaps it is not a matter of anything's being required of anyone. Perhaps God realizes -- and it would presumably know better than any of us, having created all of us, etc. -- that having hope, faith, love is good for us.

[Gob]

It may, but then why did it not make it integral to the human condition?

Or did it want us to suffer?

[Crackpot]

In full,

And they're wrestling with the "Can God make a Rock so big that even He can't lift it?" question too I'm sure.

Another of the numerous questions that present serious issues, even though Judeo-Christo-Islamic thinkers have for centuries tried to brush them off. Such questions go to the very heart of the nature of God (assuming that there is a God). And they go, if we follow the reasoning underlying whatever the answers may be, to the very heart of the nature of the (incomprehensible) universe in which we find ourselves. And they go, if we follow that reasoning even further, to the very heart of the nature of what we are.

And we see before us yet another of the innumerable Judeo-Christo-Islamic retreats in the face of reason: If you can't answer questions, just roll your eyes at them and hope that no one notices the total absence of answers.

It is simple something can't be or do something that violates it own definition. The fact that you can't understand that doesn't change that you're making an absurd point. Regardless of your claims that it is a "serious" question.

Can a turn to the left be a turn to the right? No.
Can up be down? No.
Can a being that by definition is omnipresent cease to be present? No.
Can a being that by definition is all powerful create something that it is powerless over? No.

It doesn't take a degree in logic to see these fundamental truths.

[Crackpot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
for your edification

[loCAtek]

Perhaps it is not a matter of anything's being required of anyone. Perhaps God realizes -- and it would presumably know better than any of us, having created all of us, etc. -- that having hope, faith, love is good for us.

Thanks AndrewD, that's how I would have answered.

It may, but then why did it not make it integral to the human condition?

Or did it want us to suffer?

Humans choose and change their conditions; there are all the elements on this earth for it to be a paradise. All we need to do is heed God's message that we should love each other.

[loCAtek]

These are serious -- not "grade school" -- questions. They go to the very heart of the nature of God (assuming that there is a God). And they go, if we follow the reasoning underlying whatever the answers may be, to the very heart of the nature of the (incomprehensible) universe in which we find ourselves. And they go, if we follow that reasoning even further, to the very heart of the nature of what we are.

Jewish and Christian and Islamic theological scholars have wrestled with these questions for centuries. The predominant result of that wrestling has been to dismiss them. Why? Because they cannot answer them.

I believe it is the mental/spiritual exercise that is the point, and not actually finding an answer. It appears to me that they are Judaic/Christian/Islamic versions of Buddhist Koans-

The purpose of kōans for a Zen practitioner is to become aware of the difference between himself, his mind, and his beliefs, which influence how he sees the world; and, ultimately, to help him realize his true nature. Once a Zen practitioner becomes aware of his mind as an independent form, the kōan makes sense and the teaching point is realized.

...teachers have long alerted students to the danger of confusing the interpretation of a kōan with the realization of a kōan. When teachers say "do not confuse the pointing finger with the moon", they indicate that awakening is the realization of one's true nature — not the ability to interpret a kōan with one's mind.

...

Other traditional kōans
Killing the Buddha

If you meet the Buddha, kill him.

—Linji

Thinking about Buddha is delusion, not awakening. One must destroy preconceptions of the Buddha. Zen master Shunryu Suzuki wrote in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind during an introduction to Zazen, "Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. Kill the Buddha, because you should resume your own Buddha nature."

[Andrew D]

Can a being that by definition is all powerful create something that it is powerless over? No.

If a being is by definition all-powerful, can there be anything which it is powerless to do? No.

So much for simplicity.

[Gob]

Humans choose and change their conditions; there are all the elements on this earth for it to be a paradise. All we need to do is heed God's message that we should love each other.

Why? Why set up these quirks and requirements, why would an omnipotent being do that?

Every god I've ever heard of has always been too human for me.

[loCAtek]

Why do humans choose? Ask yourself that.

Why does an omnipotent allow choice? Because he loves us.

You don't want a humane, loving God? Why?

[Gob]

Why does choice indicate love?

What does "love" mean to an omnipotent being?

Why would an omnipotent being have human emotions, or emotions at all for that matter.

All too human...

[loCAtek]

You would prefer subjugation? That would be love to you?

Love is omnipotence; Oneness.

An omnipotent being has all that and more, but is stooping got our level to relate to us.

You don't want a humane, loving God? Why?

...to relate to. Why?

[Gob]

I don't want nor need a god at all Lo.

I'm just wondering why this god of yours is so human.

And as for it "stooping got our level to relate to us", why?

[alice]

SueU

... And specifically, my Very Serious Question is, if you knew there was no god, what would you do differently, and why?

Some people already 'know' there is no god, and don't seem to do a lot differently.
Why? Because there's nothing to 'do' differently. Why would anyone expect anything different?
If someone used to believe in a god and then didn't, or used to believe in one form of religion and then changed to another - all they do differently is change their worshipping habits.

Believing or not believing in a god isn't what makes someone a good person, or a helpful person, or a nice person, or an evil person, or a bitter, twisted little busybody. People seem to achieve these sorts of things with or without a god.
There's been some really nasty god-worshipping people of any and all religions, and some equally nasty non-believers. There's been some wonderful, charitable and helpful god-worshippers of any and all religions, and there's been some equally wonderful selfless, charitable, helpful non-believers. There's been some petty, penny-pinching or rip-off artist god-worshippers, and equally as many of the non-worshippers.
I can't think of a single personality trait that can't be found equally among the godfuls and godlesses.

Even arguing about a god or not isn't something that's 'different', because different religions argue about their different gods, or about different qualities in the god/s they do or don't have - and different parts of the same big religion 'umbrellas' even argue about other different parts of those same religions and about other slightly different beliefs or rituals even amongst themselves. So knowing there is or isn't a god isn't even the only difference that promotes debate or argument about god/s - people are still going to argue about degrees and rituals and number of gods and all the other little variations in god-belief. Having a not-belief is just another variation to argue about.

loCatek

... Faith un-indoctrinated, also brings security.
Security from knowing you are part of God and his creation.

it will only bring security to those who need that type of security.
Others have their own methods and types of 'security' that don't require a belief in a god.
Still others don't require a feeling of something as a 'security' at all.

Crackpot in response to Gob

If I read them all and make the wrong choice, then I'm still fucked aren't I?

Depends on the one you settle on. Most say it depends on what kind of person you are.

Some religions don't care what type of person you are - you can be the most giving and forgiving, caring and sharing person in existence, but if you don't follow their religion you're screwed.

loCatek

Therefore, the hypothetical conclusion that 'There is no God' has a large body of evidence that has yet to be gathered and/or tested for consistency.

That sentence reads equally as correctly if you say " Therefore, the hypothetical conclusion that 'There is a God' has a large body of evidence that has yet to be gathered and/or tested for consistency",
or even " Therefore, the hypothetical conclusion that 'There is any one particular God' has a large body of evidence that has yet to be gathered and/or tested for consistency.

Sometimes when discussing/debating religion it can get a bit confusing because, again, there is such a huge variance in religious beliefs and status of god/s. So if a large body of evidence has been gathered and/or tested for consistency in relation to "a" religion or "a" particular god, that would go a long way to easing some of the world-wide animosity and heated debates and arguments between the variance religions - as well as the debates about a god or not-god.