Stephen Fry On God

I already explained this to you, it means we are thinking beyond the bounds of what God created.

I mean it's one thing if we are talking about us programming a robot which eventually emerges behavior and thought patterns we do not recognize because we are limited beings, this even extends to if say aliens created us but to extend it to the supposed sentient creator of the universe? doesn't make sense.

Essentially it suggests, at least in some facet, God did not create us.

If I were to ascribe to God(s), this leaves open the door (for me) for possibilities like an even more powerful malovelent God, which has tricked the powerful "Good" God into thinking it's the Creator. Which has also left us with a futile ability to imagine unattainable perfections for concepts such as good.

 

Ok, I understand what you are saying, I just don't see how that's absolute. God did not physically forge us obviously, if God created us it was done indirectly. We are not sure what the universe is or how it was exactly created. We are sure there are some bounds (mathematical for example) but we are also sure we don't know most of it yet. So how is it certain that it means we're thinking beyond any bounds? Isn't it just as likely we connect certain things to this concept of omnipotence (and omnibenevolence too) that are simply not absolute? Maybe catering to all our needs and wishes is not what being omnibenevolent exactly entails. To me it seems imagining an utopian world/situation is a very primal thing for beings that can reflect and are conscious (humans). Not an indication of thinking beyond the bounds of God's creation (not by default at least), especially when we are not fully aware of those bounds (or creation in its entirely).

 

How is it still omnibenevolent if it's not fulfilling the needs for love in it's creation, if it has the power to?





We either run up against paradoxes which necessitates an illogical God, or a situation where we lessen God's abilities slightly but then we can imagine a God even more powerful. I am not comfortable with either scenario.

We can imagine a better, loving more powerful God creating a universe where God does not allow bone cancer in children. That is thinking beyond the bounds of the God, if you believe in him, that created this universe.

 

We can imagine a loving God would literally fulfill our needs but maybe we are picturing it wrong how that should be done (a world without negative emotions and feelings, or divine intervention when we ask)
It seems that we beings blessed(/cursed ) with consciousness and creativity have the power to improve ourselves.

 

Why don't you let mom or dad tie your shoes for the rest of you life? If you examine your own motives you will find that you want to make your own determinations.

 

Let's say you have been tying your own shoes for awhile and then are suddenly stricken by illness which paralyzes you, is it not in the parent's loving interest to once again tie them for you if they are capable?

 

What this reasoning may be an indication of is that God is 1) not our parent, and 2) not a human individual.

 

Depends on the parents loving interest. Perhaps your wife can help just as well. Many children care for their parents for the sake of disability. We all exist to the extent we are cared for and caring to. In this world we exist for and with each other. In terms of our manifestations and shared experiences we a co-creators with god or the power of our sincere invocations. Creation is a liberal gift. No strings attached and diversity of expression the rule.

 

So you are suggesting the analogy is of no value in first place?

 

Depends where we are going with it. If it was ment to point out that being ill and paralyzed is bad and God created everything thus God can't be good or omnibenevolent, then I could suggest just that. But as you noticed i am not drawing definite conclusions yet.
What would you make of it if you would conclude God is neither your parent or a human individual?

 

Depends on where I'm going with it, meaning as if it agrees with your beliefs? Lol


Logically, I would not introduce God into the shoe tying analogy. God is irrelevant to the analogous example, it's about what constitutes the powers of a loving parental figure.

I think you see where this is going though...

If we do not think an analogy in human terms can be relatable to God in any way, in that "he" is not a parent of creation nor possesses attributes akin to those of a human, we are wasting our breath talking about God being good (or bad) or anything else we claim to know about him in human terms. For me, this extends to all religious ideas, metaphors and symbolisms of God.

However It's obviously a popular topic in the Philosophy & Religion section, so I'll likely continue to waste my breath on it.

 

man is responsible for his suffering