NOM

Either the hair on the back of your neck is sticking up because you think I've crossed the line, or you are smiling, or both. Or neither. Maybe a wrinkled brow.

This "If God wanted...." quote is one that's been around a while and I saw it again yesterday, smiled and thought to myself, yeah, that's a good one.

So many gods, but so little time. Ever wonder why the "one true church or the one and only real "god" seems to be right next to where the founder or inventor or creator of any particular god lives? Ever wonder why the words inventor and creator end in "or" instead of "er"? Me too, on both accounts.

It's been many moons since I decided to give religion, including Mormonism, the old heave-ho. Not as long as some of you though. Have I missed it? Nope. Sure, there are things I still go do to keep peace with people I know or respect, a christening or baptism or the like, but that's about it. The people who really matter in my life have remained, whether they are religious or not. Some of the folks I admire most are not Christian, or Muslim but are a little of this or a little of that....or nothing at all. Some of the folks I've the least respect for I'd refer to, though not aloud, as "religious idiots".

Again, "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist." Pretty much says it all. (sigh)

Gatorbait wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:18 amEither the hair on the back of your neck is sticking up because you think I've crossed the line, or you are smiling, or both. Or neither. Maybe a wrinkled brow.

Many here on NOM might have a bit of trepidation in agreeing with your post. I'll go ahead and stick my neck out and:

Definitely a wrinkled brow, because the statement seems to be logically equivalent to "If God exists, he wants us to believe in him."

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> exists g', g'=g

By axiom 1, WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> true; therefore, WantsUsToBelieve(g).

The problem is that I had to assume him into existence to logic with him. But maybe by "exist" you mean "is real," which looks like this:

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> IsReal(g)

If we assume that a thing can have desires only if it's real (rather than simply existing as a mathematical ideal), then axiom 2, the core of your assertion, is redundant.

So I think "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist" pretty much says nothing. Have I missed something?

Well, I get it though. I am not an atheist, but I totally understand the perspective that if there was a God, he’s make his presence a whole lot more obvious, and if there was a set of beliefs he wanted us to follow, he’d make them a lot more explicit. Even if you believe in God - which I do - you have to admit he needs to work on his communication skills.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:38 pm Well, I get it though. I am not an atheist, but I totally understand the perspective that if there was a God, he’s make his presence a whole lot more obvious, and if there was a set of beliefs he wanted us to follow, he’d make them a lot more explicit. Even if you believe in God - which I do - you have to admit he needs to work on his communication skills.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about this kind of thing recently, and the conclusion I came to is pretty simple; if there is some kind of reality beyond the purely natural, then sentient beings were not meant to know it. And by "not meant to" I mean no effort has ever been made by any supernatural being to actively reveal information of that sort.

But all that said, that doesn't exclude the idea that a seeker of such information, if it were to exist, might be able to access it in some way. Perhaps through meditation, psychedelics, tantric disciplines, or possibly science (though I'm of the firm opinion that this has not produced a single tangible result) it would be possible to discover a spiritual reality that never sought to influence the material universe. Maybe even some other method would permit access that I haven't considered. I've never made being an atheist a secret, so we have a slight disagreement there, but I'm open to any idea if the epistemology that hypothetically leads to discovery is sound.

At any rate, we both appear to agree that a supreme being could probably develop a better method of communication than a pattern of copying text from ancient versions of languages onto perishable materials, repeated over many generations. I think you said it better than I ever could, to be honest.

I think there a possibility that there is a god and it does not care or want us to believe in it. But I think it's more possible it only exists in the minds of the humans that invented it.

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:55 pm Definitely a wrinkled brow, because the statement seems to be logically equivalent to "If God exists, he wants us to believe in him."

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> exists g', g'=g

By axiom 1, WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> true; therefore, WantsUsToBelieve(g).

The problem is that I had to assume him into existence to logic with him. But maybe by "exist" you mean "is real," which looks like this:

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> IsReal(g)

If we assume that a thing can have desires only if it's real (rather than simply existing as a mathematical ideal), then axiom 2, the core of your assertion, is redundant.

So I think "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist" pretty much says nothing. Have I missed something?

You missed the part about using words to explain yourself...

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:57 pm

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:55 pm Definitely a wrinkled brow, because the statement seems to be logically equivalent to "If God exists, he wants us to believe in him."

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> exists g', g'=g

By axiom 1, WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> true; therefore, WantsUsToBelieve(g).

The problem is that I had to assume him into existence to logic with him. But maybe by "exist" you mean "is real," which looks like this:

Axiom 1: exists g, IsGod(g)

Axiom 2: WantsUsToBelieve(g) -> IsReal(g)

If we assume that a thing can have desires only if it's real (rather than simply existing as a mathematical ideal), then axiom 2, the core of your assertion, is redundant.

So I think "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist" pretty much says nothing. Have I missed something?

You missed the part about using words to explain yourself...

Okay, in words: anything that wants something must exist, so the statement is redundant.

FWIW, I sympathize with the idea behind it. God's silence, the lack of good criteria for deciding his existence, and the fact that reality seemed to falsify the Mormon formulas about his interventions, was the catalyst for my faith crisis. I'm now 95% sure that monotheism in any form is false. I'm just bothered by viral quotes that seem profound but have very little substance.

I have always thought that if God exists and He gives a damn about us, the least He could do would be to make a mountain that's shaped like something that wouldn't happen naturally; possibly a portrait of himself, or a perfectly symmetrical obelisk a mile tall.

Instead, apparently, He depends on guys who claim to speak on his behalf, who just happen to always want your money, and expect you to just take their word for it, and everybody lives within close proximity of one, and they are mutually exclusive.

Pretty weak for somebody who can build entire universes from scratch and whose representatives insist that he REALLY wants you to know him. God is a deadbeat dad.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:46 pm Instead, apparently, He depends on guys who claim to speak on his behalf, who just happen to always want your money, and expect you to just take their word for it, and everybody lives within close proximity of one, and they are mutually exclusive.

And women. They usually claim God wants them to have lots of women.

You have a good point, Hagoth, the universe is vast, awe-inspiring and incomprehensible - the Mormon God is small-minded, petty, churlish, and obsessed with ridiculous things like bare shoulders and multiple earrings, and mostly uses his vast, unimaginable powers to help people find car keys.

The morning light is filling the valley where I live with the hope of a new day full of peacefulness.

Sometimes I marvel at how lucky all of us are to be able to have the freedom of speaking or writing our thoughts on a place such as this. Some of your incites on this topic help to humble me. I see that most of you are far wiser than I am and you continually build on the respect that I have for you. Good comments, all.

The thing is, as it has been said by Joe Palmer, a Kentucky sports writer, who mainly focused on horse racing, "The next best thing to a lie, is the truth that nobody will believe". Perhaps the next best thing to the truth then, is a lie everybody believes.

Just because someone says a thing, or writes it or communicates it, does not make it true. The truth is independent of thought or anything else. What we strive for is proof. Everyone wonders about God. Does he or she manifest himself or herself in the sea? Deep and dark and full of mystery. Or the sun, that gives light to all. People have worshiped both for centuries- maybe millennia- together with thousands of other "gods".

A little proof and the thing is done. No more "my god is better than your god". As the song goes, "It would be hard for the devil to do- but it would be easy for you". How about a little proof? And I don't mean speaking through men or women. I mean speaking to all of us as God.