Most atheist arguments really do just boil down to “why doesn’t God act the way I would if I were God?”
101
302
2,122
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
If God is, and is before the created world, it is silly to try to apply the rules of the created world (like rational logic) into its creator.
Also, you're at the core of it: it's not a thing. God is the totality.
1
9
But here it’s worth pointing out that it’s the major traditional religions that have anthropomorphised God — not atheists. The Bible for example describes God with xyz properties (mercy, kindness etc) — is it also “silly” to apply such clearly earthly, human attributes to God?
1
1
People anthropomorphized God for the sake of convenience, to be able to speak about God. But they (who got it) warned against idolatry, ie. mistaking the representation for the reality. Atheists fall for it by getting entangled in the way God is represented.
1
It’s almost like analogizing electricity with fluid dynamics (eg. the expression ‘the flow of an electric current’). It helps us visualize it, but it doesn’t mean electricity is water.
1
1
I can accept that, but then I’ll argue that this leads most logically to agnosticism — “God” in your description is so abstract as to almost be meaningless. Which is fine but arguably not compatible with the various specific attributes applied to “Him” in religion.
1
1
Oh, God is not abstract—I’m trying to say God is beyond all abstraction. God is indeed meaningless (or beyond meaning), because meaning exists only in the human mind, which exists within reality, which is God.
1
1
One should look at all the things said about God in different religions in the same way one looks at different languages. Calling a tree “a tree” or “arbor” or “puu” doesn’t make the reality of the tree any different—it’s only differences in cultural, symbolic expression.
1
1
I’m with you and I agree. If this is where you draw the line, that’s one thing. But should you also want to make very specific statements about God’s intentions or desires, “sent his only Son” for example, then I’d point out that you have problematised the ability to do so.
1
1
Yeah, I agree with that completely—although one should also remember that there can be a forgotten nuance and symbolistic nature in spiritual expressions like that. They're certainly very easily abused by power-hungry people, which is very problematic too indeed.