Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I often see statements like "Your God does...", "How can you believe in a God that does/allows...", etc. from the atheist/agnostic crowd. All the same, this is not

What would your God do differently?

Let us create hypothetical fact statements to narrow statements to something other than "He'd make life perfect...BAM!!!!" And just because I want some bound there because my beliefs place some bounds there.

Good and Evil exist in opposition to each other.
Evil will work in opposition to Good.
Good cannot eliminate Evil. Reason why? I have no clue.
God cannot break any of his laws. (By laws anything that limits man, or anything that describes existence)
God creates laws that will:

Encourage the cooperation of man with man
Discourage man harming man


Now this is hypothetical, and does not imply belief, merely your statement as to what should be different basically and why (Why it should be different and/or the rationale for the suggestion made.)

The why is important. I hope that this will engender various people responding and debating the merit of statements. So all suggestions should be attacked if they seem to be illogical or irrational.

Originally posted by Regret
Good and Evil exist in opposition to each other.
Evil will work in opposition to Good.
Good cannot eliminate Evil. Reason why? I have no clue.
God cannot break any of his laws. (By laws anything that limits man, or anything that describes existence)
God creates laws that will:

Encourage the cooperation of man with man
Discourage man harming man


Maybe I'm not catching you here. but.

1. You imply the existance fo god, let alone on that amkes laws.
2. You imply good and evil exist, and that they are magically in conflict with eachother.
3. You imply god is on the good side.

So I really dont see anything but perceptions, none that imp carry much weight.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe I'm not catching you here. but.

1. You imply the existance fo god, let alone on that amkes laws.
2. You imply good and evil exist, and that they are magically in conflict with eachother.
3. You imply god is on the good side.

So I really dont see anything but perceptions, none that imp carry much weight.

Moreover, good and evil need not necessarily work in opposition of one another, e.g. both may use the same means to acheive different but not ends.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe I'm not catching you here. but.

1. You imply the existance fo god, let alone on that amkes laws.
2. You imply good and evil exist, and that they are magically in conflict with eachother.
3. You imply god is on the good side.

So I really dont see anything but perceptions, none that imp carry much weight.

Yes, he is implying all of those things.

That is the point. In many traditional religions- indeed, in the traditional concept of religion- those things that Regret mentions are generlaly assumed to be so.

Regret simply wants people to say what you think God should be like IF THESE THINGS WERE SO!

Obviously you don't think these things are so so you raised the objections you did. Forget them- this is a theoretical situation based around the idea that people argue about why a God would do x or y within the assumptions religion makes.

Ok, I'll slap together a theoretical monotheistic God that wont just snap his divine fingers and make the world perfect, but will still be good as opposed to evil (though an evil God creation thread might be interesting, or even a neutral God.) Anyway, the things that are the way they are:

The God would prove it exists: I have always disliked the rather weak argument that God proving himself dispels faith and thus messes it all up. Ancient cultures believed they were seeing proof of their gods in the rain and the sun - and they had faith. Even though these things were not religious they believed them so. I think God should prove himself, and prove the claim of being a loving father.

-- Thus, a mighty island is raised from the see, atop which sits a temple crafted by Gods own hands, proof of the beauty he is capable of. Within sits an avatar, a physical manifestation as proof to his existence. People can journey to the island with ease, and witness proof of its existence.

The God will make its opinion on good and evil known: God would make it clear, by fiery words in the sky or beautiful voices raised in song what it considers good and bad, and it will explain why this is so. It will not be petty or human, but show a transcendent understanding of the universe, as well as the nature of humankind. It will also make it known that these concepts it puts forward are not of its making - they are bigger then it. It created yes, and while its power is awesome in physical terms; concepts are always the by product of its actions. It creates a universe, that universe has a life and soul (while vastly different from a human one.) In that is the potential, when broken down far enough, for good and evil. The universe is beyond that, due to not having a sentience as such, but it exists conceptually in the small lives of those who exist because of it, and are a part of it.

The God will banish all religion: This God is beyond vanity, it desires no one worship it, it needs no temples, no cowering masses, no hateful evangelists. It will make it known that even should they should worship it they should not expect to be held in any higher or lower regard then any other person.

God will not be jealous: As above - if there are other gods people can people worship them, even if there isn't they can. God doesn't mind. Actions and what is in a persons personality are what matter when it comes to...

The God will make clear there is an afterlife: But it will not be a buddy system, or a heaven and hell system. If a person is good in life they shall enjoy the fruits of that life, they can choose to dwell in a place without the troubles of of earth (a proverbial paradise of their making), or they can choose reincarnation and walk amongst mortals for as long as they wish. As for those that are bad - they will experience a moment of true epiphany in which they truly understand and experience the consequences of their actions. Then they shall be reincarnated with this knowledge, free to try again or make mistakes anew. How a person is defined (a life of good/bad) refers to those concepts bigger then the God. He doesn't judge, this just happens. However it would not be a petty thing, it would take into account balance and intent and so forth. "Good" wouldn't be a stereotype like certain religions hold on to.

The God will advocate: Understanding, knowledge, equality and the personal search for inner peace and happiness.

Free Will: God will make it known that mankind has the choice to do as they wish, but he will, like a parent, caution against certain paths. Not out of vanity or bias, but out of concern for this creation. He will advocate law and justice built upon concepts of equality, peace and happiness. For those who follow such a path things will be easier - an unconscious by product of a God smiling on their achievements. For those who choose a less pleasant path - they need not fear lightening bolts, but at the same time their efforts that would harm others will not benefit from that same sort of divine warmth that accompanies a good person.

No more natural tragedy: Natural disasters, disease and the like would be no more. Only humanity would have the ability to inflict harm upon itself. Humans would not need pray in fear or sorrow about things that are not the direct fault of humanity. Science and industry could turn to the improvement of life and mind as opposed to dealing with the ravages of disease and the like. Of course all people would have to think first before doing something to the world that might cause a reaction that will harm them.

........... The God can be killed: It is in the nature of humanity, ingrained in their souls, that they can as a species can transcend and evolve beyond what they are. They are of, theoretically, limitless potential. It is possible they could wipe themselves out. It is possible they could change and no longer be considered human. It is also possible that one day they will reach the very peak, and look the God in the eye as an equal. What happens next? Does humanity replace it? Live with it? Surpass it? Who knows, but the God makes it known this is possible, and that it is at peace with it. The perfect creation, by rights, has to surpass its creator if he is flawed, or equal him if he is perfect. Whether humanity would be good/evil/neither in such a situation is unknown.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ok, I'll slap together a theoretical monotheistic God that wont just snap his divine fingers and make the world perfect, but will still be good as opposed to evil (though an evil God creation thread might be interesting, or even a neutral God.) Anyway, the things that are the way they are:

The God would prove it exists: I have always disliked the rather weak argument that God proving himself dispels faith and thus messes it all up. Ancient cultures believed they were seeing proof of their gods in the rain and the sun - and they had faith. Even though these things were not religious they believed them so. I think God should prove himself, and prove the claim of being a loving father.

-- Thus, a mighty island is raised from the see, atop which sits a temple crafted by Gods own hands, proof of the beauty he is capable of. Within sits an avatar, a physical manifestation as proof to his existence. People can journey to the island with ease, and witness proof of its existence.

I can understand the desire for this, it is something that the majority of theists would like. Although, I guess the Christian world believes this will happen at the second coming of Christ.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The God will make its opinion on good and evil known: God would make it clear, by fiery words in the sky or beautiful voices raised in song what it considers good and bad, and it will explain why this is so.

What occurs later when God's opinion of good and evil have left the sky? Does he just have them flash up there avery ten to twenty years? Does man get annoyed by these constant reminders of God's opinion? How is God's opinon maintained?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It will not be petty or human, but show a transcendent understanding of the universe, as well as the nature of humankind. It will also make it known that these concepts it puts forward are not of its making - they are bigger then it.

My religion actually believes that it is necessary for God to follow certain "eternal laws" to be God as he is. I think that this satisfies that these concepts it puts forward are not of its making - they are bigger then it, so will not argue with the idea.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It created yes, and while its power is awesome in physical terms; concepts are always the by product of its actions. It creates a universe, that universe has a life and soul (while vastly different from a human one.) In that is the potential, when broken down far enough, for good and evil. The universe is beyond that, due to not having a sentience as such, but it exists conceptually in the small lives of those who exist because of it, and are a part of it.

What is the consequences of evil? Or does evil in man run rampant? How does God mediate this? Or does he only present his opinion on the subject?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The God will banish all religion: This God is beyond vanity, it desires no one worship it, it needs no temples, no cowering masses, no hateful evangelists. It will make it known that even should they should worship it they should not expect to be held in any higher or lower regard then any other person.

So, why does man care about God's opinion then? And why should man believe or consider what God says, since he is merely a more highly developed entity.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
God will not be jealous: As above - if there are other gods people can people worship them, even if there isn't they can. God doesn't mind. Actions and what is in a persons personality are what matter when it comes to...

So what explains proper actions and personality are?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The God will make clear there is an afterlife: But it will not be a buddy system, or a heaven and hell system. If a person is good in life they shall enjoy the fruits of that life, they can choose to dwell in a place without the troubles of of earth (a proverbial paradise of their making), or they can choose reincarnation and walk amongst mortals for as long as they wish. As for those that are bad - they will experience a moment of true epiphany in which they truly understand and experience the consequences of their actions. Then they shall be reincarnated with this knowledge, free to try again or make mistakes anew. How a person is defined (a life of good/bad) refers to those concepts bigger then the God. He doesn't judge, this just happens. However it would not be a petty thing, it would take into account balance and intent and so forth. "Good" wouldn't be a stereotype like certain religions hold on to.

What makes a person that is bad want to be other than he has been? Is there some negative consequence to evil action? Why should a person be good?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The God will advocate: Understanding, knowledge, equality and the personal search for inner peace and happiness.

Why does man care?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Free Will: God will make it known that mankind has the choice to do as they wish, but he will, like a parent, caution against certain paths. Not out of vanity or bias, but out of concern for this creation. He will advocate law and justice built upon concepts of equality, peace and happiness. For those who follow such a path things will be easier - an unconscious by product of a God smiling on their achievements. For those who choose a less pleasant path - they need not fear lightening bolts, but at the same time their efforts that would harm others will not benefit from that same sort of divine warmth that accompanies a good person.

What concern does God have for his creation in this scenario? It seems that there is no consequence to action. Also, it seems that God has preference for good beings, is there differing levels to the divine favor that one would receive?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No more natural tragedy: Natural disasters, disease and the like would be no more. Only humanity would have the ability to inflict harm upon itself. Humans would not need pray in fear or sorrow about things that are not the direct fault of humanity. Science and industry could turn to the improvement of life and mind as opposed to dealing with the ravages of disease and the like. Of course all people would have to think first before doing something to the world that might cause a reaction that will harm them.

So, given our era, scientists state that it is highly probable that many natural disasters are the result of man interfering with nature. So, by this reasoning the world could end up with natural disasters due to man's errors?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
........... The God can be killed: It is in the nature of humanity, ingrained in their souls, that they can as a species can transcend and evolve beyond what they are. They are of, theoretically, limitless potential. It is possible they could wipe themselves out. It is possible they could change and no longer be considered human. It is also possible that one day they will reach the very peak, and look the God in the eye as an equal. What happens next? Does humanity replace it? Live with it? Surpass it? Who knows, but the God makes it known this is possible, and that it is at peace with it. The perfect creation, by rights, has to surpass its creator if he is flawed, or equal him if he is perfect. Whether humanity would be good/evil/neither in such a situation is unknown.

This is similar to my religions view, and as such I will not question this further.

I feel I should clarify slightly the question. For the purposes of this discussion creation occurred, and our existence is life. I am asking the question from the stance of the world as is. Man is as man is.

Edit: Words in italics added

Originally posted by Regret
I feel I should clarify slightly the question. Creation occurred, and our existence is life. I am asking the question from the stance of the world as is. Man is as man is.

"Creation occurred" Please explain.

IMO the universe was never created; time is limitless.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Creation occurred" Please explain.

IMO the universe was never created; time is limitless.

The question is in response to claims that I mention:

"I often see statements like 'Your God does...', 'How can you believe in a God that does/allows...', etc. from the atheist/agnostic crowd."

It is a hypothetical statement based on "if" these things occurred, and there is "God." So participation requires allowing the hypothetical assumption. These are the "rules" of this debate. In essence it should break down into a severe discussion of the alternatives to these mistakes, or at the least a discussion as to the practicality of the alternatives to the perceived mistakes of "God."

Given the nature of Buddhist belief these statements do not occur as attacks on Buddhism. Unless I am incorrect, but if I am correct my hypothetical situation does not work with Buddhist views. It is mainly directed at atheists and agnostics.

Originally posted by Regret
The question is in response to claims that I mention:

"I often see statements like 'Your God does...', 'How can you believe in a God that does/allows...', etc. from the atheist/agnostic crowd."

It is a hypothetical statement based on "if" these things occurred, and there is "God." So participation requires allowing the hypothetical assumption. These are the "rules" of this debate. In essence it should break down into a severe discussion of the alternatives to these mistakes, or at the least a discussion as to the practicality of the alternatives to the perceived mistakes of "God."

Given the nature of Buddhist belief these statements do not occur as attacks on Buddhism. Unless I am incorrect, but if I am correct my hypothetical situation does not work with Buddhist views. It is mainly directed at atheists and agnostics.

I found no offence. The idea of Creation is an assumption that cannot be proven. I just thought I would ask.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I found no offence. The idea of Creation is an assumption that cannot be proven. I just thought I would ask.

Np, I just went lengthy to clarify the thread's purpose.

Originally posted by Regret
Good and Evil exist in opposition to each other.

This is not always so in real life. Good and Evil exist in every human being, to different degrees of that spectrum. Like Adam Poe says, Good and Evil often aim in the same direction, yet the means by which the journey is taken may be in opposition.

Good does not automatically mean "of God" and bad does not automaticalyl mean "against God"... these definitions are totally bias, and based solely on religion and by no other evidense.

My definition may seem bias, but is bias by personal/social research and experience, and not by a book or by a tv show....To me a good act is one where you solely try to enjoy, benefit, or educated another person or people, without greed or any propagandous intention. If you see that your act is only succeeding in annoying, harassing, or harming that person, you withdraw the act immediately. A Good act does not aim to violate one's freedom, individuality, or rights.....yet it also keeps their safety in mind.

An Evil Act by my definition is one where you aim to harm, harass, intentionally mislead, torture, kill, or control another person. Control is never a good thing....control is the withdrawal of one's physical, mental, emotional, social, and personal freedom. A Freedom that is natually deserved by us all, and only comes to question when this freedom is used to immediately and evidently harm or violate another person. An Evil Act is one that causes suffering, strife, conflict or inconvienence that is unwanted by the person recieving it, in the event where that person did NOT do something to violate the rights of another person.




Originally posted by Regret
Evil will work in opposition to Good.

True Evils like Hate, Discrimination, Violence, Judgement, and Torment ...yes these will always be to prevent Peace and Pleasure.

Originally posted by Regret
Good cannot eliminate Evil. Reason why? I have no clue.

A single good act can prevent an evil act. However, as for good prevailing over evil, i beleive that evil will always exist in someone. Cruelty, Hatred, and Sadism are sometimes thought to be inherit in people, and not always taught...if this is true, then there is no known means of ending this.

Originally posted by Regret
God cannot break any of his laws. (By laws anything that limits man, or anything that describes existence)

But God does all the time, doesn't he? The God that many of you Christians, Muslims, and Jews preach about seems like the cosmic hypocrit in my opinion.

How a God who created something as complex as this Universe CARES for such miniscule things as our individuality, and would come up with such mundane rules which prevent no true evil (ex: Don't shave your beard, don't have sex with someone of your same gender, put your son first, men are incharge, don't stare at someone with lust if you are not married to them, don't have sex without the intention of children, etc.)



Originally posted by Regret
God creates laws that will:

Encourage the cooperation of man with man
Discourage man harming man



1) Wrong.....the Bible, Torah, and Quran hypocritically encourage peace AND violence, understanding AND ignorance, love AND hate, etc. It's the biggest book of contradictions that have EVER EXISTED, and religion is one of the TOP REASONS for justifying hate, violence, and discrimination.

2) WRONG AGAIN ..The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death, also says they should be stoned...says prostitutes should be stoned, says massive amounts of people will end up in hell, says God sent disease, famine, and natural disasters as punishments for our "sins", our loving father burns down cities and burns up people's flesh, he wants women as second class beings, daughters are to be sold for money, sons are meant for war....

etc...lots of hypocrisy.

u know these god threads are tirin me. it has been QUITE well established that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving and omni present entity CAN not exist, that is certain 100% making it completely indefensible. i dont think people should even TRY anymore to look at the lower acts of god which cant be justified when the very BASIS of the concept MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT EXIST. now if sum1 said there were many godly entities not being omnipotent, omniscient etc, THEN u could argue on moral grounds but to even get on moral grounds with organised relegions like islam and christianity as to encourage the mindless opposition. which i can BET wont change their view fom this thread or from any other. so stop wastin ur energy people.

Originally posted by Regret
The question is in response to claims that I mention:

"I often see statements like 'Your God does...', 'How can you believe in a God that does/allows...', etc. from the atheist/agnostic crowd."

It is a hypothetical statement based on "if" these things occurred, and there is "God." So participation requires allowing the hypothetical assumption. These are the "rules" of this debate. In essence it should break down into a severe discussion of the alternatives to these mistakes, or at the least a discussion as to the practicality of the alternatives to the perceived mistakes of "God."

Given the nature of Buddhist belief these statements do not occur as attacks on Buddhism. Unless I am incorrect, but if I am correct my hypothetical situation does not work with Buddhist views. It is mainly directed at atheists and agnostics.

This thread isn't a discussion of the hypothetical statements in the opening. Those are the claims religions, mine in particular, have as to the nature of God. They are watered down even as to the claims of many religions to allow more leeway in attempts to explain your view of how religion should be.

All the same, I feel that the claims Urizen made fit the intent of the thread. Although my intent was to attack the validity of these type of claims, not to defend the stance I have. I would like more detailed explanations as to the reasons these views exist and more support for your position. It seems that they are probably distracting statements from the purpose of your attack, and could possibly be summed up in a more concise argument.

I'll respond to your post in my next one Urizen.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This is not always so in real life. Good and Evil exist in every human being, to different degrees of that spectrum. Like Adam Poe says, Good and Evil often aim in the same direction, yet the means by which the journey is taken may be in opposition.

Good does not automatically mean "of God" and bad does not automaticalyl mean "against God"... these definitions are totally bias, and based solely on religion and by no other evidense.

My definition may seem bias, but is bias by personal/social research and experience, and not by a book or by a tv show....To me a good act is one where you solely try to enjoy, benefit, or educated another person or people, without greed or any propagandous intention. If you see that your act is only succeeding in annoying, harassing, or harming that person, you withdraw the act immediately. A Good act does not aim to violate one's freedom, individuality, or rights.....yet it also keeps their safety in mind.

An Evil Act by my definition is one where you aim to harm, harass, intentionally mislead, torture, kill, or control another person. Control is never a good thing....control is the withdrawal of one's physical, mental, emotional, social, and personal freedom. A Freedom that is natually deserved by us all, and only comes to question when this freedom is used to immediately and evidently harm or violate another person. An Evil Act is one that causes suffering, strife, conflict or inconvienence that is unwanted by the person recieving it, in the event where that person did NOT do something to violate the rights of another person.

Good and evil are opposites. Even though good and evil can exist in a single individual I would assert that they are working in opposition to each other even in this case. An evil act is an act that is not good, and vice versa. Now, there may be varying degrees of good and evil, but if one side or the other is stronger than the other in a given act then it is either good or evil.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
True Evils like Hate, Discrimination, Violence, Judgement, and Torment ...yes these will always be to prevent Peace and Pleasure.

I believe your "True Evils" are simplistic and do not necessarily describe evil, they are merely a few extreme cases of evil action. An evil act, however minute is in opposition to a good action of some type.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A single good act can prevent an evil act. However, as for good prevailing over evil, i beleive that evil will always exist in someone. Cruelty, Hatred, and Sadism are sometimes thought to be inherit in people, and not always taught...if this is true, then there is no known means of ending this.

I would state that good cannot be defined without the existence of it's opposite.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But God does all the time, doesn't he? The God that many of you Christians, Muslims, and Jews preach about seems like the cosmic hypocrit in my opinion.

How a God who created something as complex as this Universe CARES for such miniscule things as our individuality, and would come up with such mundane rules which prevent no true evil (ex: Don't shave your beard, don't have sex with someone of your same gender, put your son first, men are incharge, don't stare at someone with lust if you are not married to them, don't have sex without the intention of children, etc.)

I would claim he is not a hypocrite. I would claim that interpretations made by men can make it seem so, but I do not believe that the God of the Bible is a hypocrite. I would claim that these interpretations are in error if he is made a hypocrite by the interpretation, and as such invalidate the religion using that interpretation as doctrine.

Given that these rules exist/ed, are there possible logical reasons for them? Don't shave your beard, allowed for Jews to be visibly recognized and distinguished from many other peoples. Don't have sex with someone of your same gender, I do not understand the need to do so, and seems to be a healthy consideration in terms of hygiene. Put your son first, to tell you the truth I am unsure as to where you got this one. Men are in charge, I believe that this is an inaccurate statement due to the position men hold in religion and it belittles the role of women. Don't stare at someone with lust if you are not married to them, well this is an extension of no extramarital sex, and as such is of itself a poor example. Don't have sex without the intention of children, if children result, what will be the level of esteem held by parents that did not intend their conception?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Wrong.....the Bible, Torah, and Quran hypocritically encourage peace AND violence, understanding AND ignorance, love AND hate, etc. It's the biggest book of contradictions that have EVER EXISTED, and religion is one of the TOP REASONS for justifying hate, violence, and discrimination.

Give some support. You have made a statement here that lacks support, provide it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) WRONG AGAIN ..The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death, also says they should be stoned...says prostitutes should be stoned, says massive amounts of people will end up in hell, says God sent disease, famine, and natural disasters as punishments for our "sins", our loving father burns down cities and burns up people's flesh, he wants women as second class beings, daughters are to be sold for money, sons are meant for war....

etc...lots of hypocrisy.

My religions view on the subject



My personal view on the subject is that in these situations the acts described are in conflict with one of the two purposes of the laws.