I like the idea, maybe you like it, too.

A lot of faiths have no problem with the idea that 'God is malevolent' or at least 'God can be kind of a dick.'

I was raised in a Christian tradition that really drove home the whole 'God will punish you in Hell and is a being who's wrath is to be feared' message.

Blessings
~ND

Don't want to offence but it's so funny :

Interesting. But why does God need to have will, or even be sentient at all?

Regardless of our ability to conceive or rationalize it, reality is something. Call it 'X'. In an algebraic equation, 'X' can be an infinite variety of numbers that we can guess at, but only through solving the formula can we learn it's true value--what 'X' actually is. Yet when solving for an algebraic equation there is never any doubt that 'X' exists. Even before we start isolating variables, we know for a fact that 'X' is ultimately something. It has to be, otherwise there would be no equation for us to solve.

To me, 'God' is just the unsolved variable, the 'X' of the incomprehensibly intricate algebraic formula that is reality. I might think that X=1, someone else might think X=2. But there's no doubt to anyone that 'X' must exist because we're all trying to solve for it. By virtue of simply existing in the universe, we can logically conclude that there are variables to solve for - thereby indicating the existence of a larger equation.

Maybe 'God' is the formula itself, and the missing variables are simply parts of the equation, of reality, that we haven't yet solved for.

Ermm...right?

If there is a God, why should we expect it to be in accordance with what we believe is just? You would have to have a 'God' sized ego to go with that assumption. Is it fair to say God can only exist if he follows your rules?

Who am I, (a human) to say there is no God?

Its like the atheist who says: "Well, there is no proof. Unless you can prove it to ME then why should I believe?"

Well, who the hell are you?

The absence of proof is only of secondary consideration.

The primary question is: why assume the existence of a god at all?

The presumed attributes of any god are mostly telling about the psycho-emotional (mind)set of those who want to believe.

'God hates you all'



..
on another tangent, though..
the point of 'non-dualism' (Vedanta,Buddhism etc) is to move above such subjective and relative views as the OP quote..

define God..

reaction against flimsy Christian concepts (and not all theologians are that limited) is really an intellectual kindergarten, imo

It's all relative..

@DansMaTete: That was funny thank you!

The quote of the OP is just a human projection on the concept of God.
Evil, omnipotent, willing, etc.. all are human attributes.
And why should anyone expect anything from 'GOD' (whoever that is). That again is a human, self-centered attitude.
So I find the quote rather useless. (no offence to you Ufostrahlen )

Christianity:

"Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is within." - Jesus

Buddhism:

"The subject on which I meditate is truth.
The practice to which I devote myself is the truth.
The topic of my conversation is truth.
My thoughts are always in truth.
For lo! my self has become the truth" - Buddha


Hinduism:

"There is one Supreme Ruler, the inmost Self of all beings,
who makes His one form manifold.
Eternal happiness belongs to the wise,
who perceive Him within themselves - not to others." - Vedas

"It is impossible to find God outside of ourselves.
Our own souls contribute all of the divinity that is
outside of us. We are the greatest temple.
The objectification is only a faint imitation of
what we see within ourselves." - Swami Vivekananda



Islam:
"He who knows his own self, knows God" - Mohammed


"Where is that Moon that never rises or sets?
Where is that soul that is neither with nor without us?
Don't say it is here or there.
All creation is Him but for the eyes that can see." - Rumi

This.

Great responses.


I feel the same. Why give the mystery or the unknown human attributes? No "human-like" God has ever spoken to me nor have I ever found evidence for it. I found the term for that behavior: Anthropomorphism.


Even though you dismiss anthropomorphic traits of a God, you subconsciously give it person-like attributes by using the word "whoever" instead of "whatever". The conditioning is ingrained very deeply.

I remember looking up stuff in bible, when I had this shitty psilo mushroom trip some years ago. It was one of the last straws to end the "death spiral" - at least in my mind. But I survived (literally) without the help of the bible (I couldn't read it anyways) and I learned something personal. That is, taking psychedelic drugs by measurement, not by guesstimates. And having a pill, that terminates the trip. After that event, I felt that scientific literature is my friend when it comes to psychedelic trips. Never had a bad trip afterwards.

That was my attempt at being sarcastic.
It is true that when I think of 'GOD' then I think of the word with all it's connotations. But it's just a concept without meaning to me.

Yes, sarcasm or playful cynicism is practically required. Arguing semantics about something unspeakable is a redundant oxymoron.



Not A being, but rather, being itself.

The argument assumes that there is "evil" - which might be a problem.

I'm of the opinion that "God" is simply the oneness in all, the sum of its parts plus more. Given that definition, Epicurus' diatribe falls apart:

>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

God is not willing to prevent anything. Neither good, or evil. In fact, by definition, God (creation) is about not preventing anything from happening, because if it did, there would be no creation.

>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Creation is neutral. There is no "he" to be malevolant (nor good).

>Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

"Evil is a point of view, Anakin."

>Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

That's the only valid statement by Epicurus. There is no personified God. But that doesn't mean that the whole of everything isn't valid, it just doesn't play by human morality rules. It doesn't have to.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mshell/Shell.%20EK.Chapter%201.pdf

http://www.geenstijl.nl/.../images/suicide_note.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz-fYbFN_o

Let's also not forget that in some faiths, what is 'good' or 'bad' are considered to be based on God's desires, not any sort of external moral criteria.

For a long time, people considered that whatever God wanted was 'good' and whatever he didn't want was 'sin.' If God told you to murder and rape, then that was the 'good' thing to do. it wouldn't be consistent with the omnipotent nature of God to assume that he was bound by some greater moral stricture.

It just so happens that what God wants you to do is largely consistent with social norms of good and bad.

In this light, all that happens is good because God allows it - there is no evil at all. If you have problems with it, that's because you are out of sync with God.

(Note: I'm not endorsing this, just reporting on the beliefs of many Mideaval-era theologians).

Blessings
~ND

Man looks to God and asks "there is disease, destruction and suffering all over the world. How can you let things go on like this?"
And God looks at man and says "I was about to ask you the same question."

For argument purposes, lets say God is the personified version many like to believe or disbelieve in. Would he really be a great God if he created us to be free and then intervened every time we did something he didn't like, or thought we didn't like? Would we really be free?

I thought the moral of the story was kind of like he created us and gave us free will and told us what we needed to do to stay in a constant paradise, but it was our choice to follow his advice or not and we didn't. From that perspective he wouldn't be a God of much integrity if he went back on his word and bailed us out.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

And that being said I remember a saying "God helps those who help themselves" which I always took as meaning he will not directly come and bail us out, but for anyone who is so willing a way can always be found.

So even with assuming the personified version of God, I don't agree with those sentiments, never mind a Godified version of God, I.E. the great variable we are all trying to solve for.

Adding a gnostic flavor to the thread here ... I think much of the personification we see today stems from the three major monotheistic religion's worship of a 'demiurge' figure as opposed to a transcendent god.. sadly its a deeply engrained way of pondering god today ..for both religious and athiests ..(gnostics would even see this phenomenon itself as work of the demiurge).

Even if "god" were some top dog deity, you could hardly consider that deity to be god in the true sense of the word (the source of everything..).. because to exist as "form" would indicate that it exists within and is supported by something greater - it would need a context that makes it "form"...otherwise it would really be a blank canvas of opportunity with no "specifics of being".. sound inneffably familiar?).. Herme's dialogue to Asclepius in the Corpus Hermeticum is a very fun exercise of logical subtraction of the cosmos down to "god" or "source"

and while on the thread of gnosticism I'll include a very poetic piece of writing from the Nag Hammadi library...regarding "god" .. from "The secret book of John"

"The One is the invisible spirit. We should not think of it as a god or like a god. For it is greater than a god, because it has nothing over it and no lord above it. It does not exist within anything inferior to it, since everything exists within it, for it established itself. It is eternal, since it does not need anything. For it is absolutely complete. It has never lacked anything in order to be completed by it. Rather, it is absolutely complete in light.

The One is

illimitable, since there is nothing before it to limit it,
unfathomable, since there is nothing before it to fathom it,
immeasurable, since there was nothing before it to measure it,
invisible, since nothing has seen it,
eternal, since it exists eternally.
unutterable, since nothing could comprehend it to utter it,
unnamable, because there is nothing before it to give it a name."

the most interesting inquiries of the divine seem to present a "simultaneous" nature to god .. eq the idea of being one whilst being many.. being the creator and the creation... a concept difficult for many to grapple with in the deity worshipping climate of religion today.. and a concept I can see the source of the quote in OP obviously hasn't grappled well with either. I feel like many people's stance towards the existence or non-existence of god is more of a stance about morals than anything (in addition to a misunderstanding of the definition of god)

[EDIT apologies for reitterating so many points that people had already argued well.. I had not read the whole thread]