I don't know? What do you think?
Kate xx
cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?
by KateWild 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
designs
Lead pencil #2
-
Monsieur
Hi Kate,
it is easy to discard 'God' or label God as pointless altogether when one doesn't fully understand what God really is.
If you view God as a literal person, like you or me, literally sitting on a throne in the heavens, then yes, he is very much pointless. Why would an all powerful God have to sit on a throne being catered to by millions and millions of angels?
conviniently, this is a God that you cannot (or not suppose) to see. this is a big clue as to what God really is.
God is a symbol, a representation of something else. What is it suppose to represent? The Bible answers the question. God is justice, power, wisdom, and above all else, love.
God is also perfect, exact, accurate, unfailing, good. 'God' is even given a name, Yahweh or Jehovah, meaning 'I can be ANYTHING I need to be'.
As humans, we are quick to 'personify' and humanize things that are NOT human or people, we do it with our cats and dogs, even unliving things like our car and house. We've done the same with 'God', and its created a ton of confusion.
-
adamah
Kate asked-
cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?
It's a conclusion who's validity isn't supported by any evidence, but relies only on it's cleverness. Ultimately it is merely 'noise', since it gets you no closer to answering the question it claims to answer. As such, the form of the slogan is considered a 'style over substance' fallacy, which I've written about on my blog in this article.
Think about it: you could replace 'God' in that slogan with ANYTHING WHATSOEVER (Eg "atheism is like a pencil: pointless"), and it would be equally-meaningful (or meaningless, as the case may be) since it allows ANY two 'things' to be linked, where it's true or not.
(It's one-step below the trite believer's slogans such as, "Let Go, Let God!", which relies on the implicit assumption that since there's overlap in the letters of the English language found in the words, there is a link to the concepts. Silly idea....)
So it really gets you nowhere in answering the question of the 'cost vs benefits' question of believing in God (which it is implicitly claiming to prove, by saying God is pointless. It's not proven or disproven by the slogan, either way, since there ARE valid reasons for believing in God, eg the tasty church pot-lucks).
But even if another valid approach was used to answer that question, it still would only constitute a "benefits-based" (telelogical) argument, which ultimately doesn't answer the underlying question: does God exist or not? Some people like to believe in things that actually do EXIST, regardless of how it makes us feel, or the benefits of beliving!
On the underlying question of God's existence, I feel there's PLENTY of supportive evidence from various sources (the Bible itself, archaeology, sociology, history,biology, etc) to claim that God doesn't exist but the belief in God is merely a perpetuation of ancient beliefs (i.e. it relies on an 'appeal to tradition' argument, eg "Believing in God was good enuf for me Grandpappy, and it's good enuf for ME!" kind of thing).
Adam
-
MadGiant
Monsieur
What God really is?
And please answer that as I was aN adult.
Ismael
-
Monsieur
But even if another valid approach was used to answer the question, it still would only constitute a "benefits-based" (telelogical) argument, which ultimately doesn't answer the underlying question: does God exist or not? Some people like to believe in things that actually do EXIST, regardless of how it makes us feel!
kate,
see what adamah wrote? case in point. When you attempt to make 'God' what he isnt' (a literal person) it gets very confusing.
-
Phizzy
I think Cantleave's little slogan is good. It makes one think, "well, if there is a god, what is he for ?"
-
adamah
Monsieur said-
see what adamah wrote? case in point. When you attempt to make 'God' what he isnt' (a literal person) it gets very confusing.
Sorry Monseuir, but I'm not playing along with your, "I want to redefine 'God' to mean 'science" game: it's a vapid and intellectually-dishonest approach which tries to move the pieces and relies on your silly obsfucation.... That's precisely WHY Ishmael just asked you to define God: he's likely seen your tactic before, too.
Adam
-
Monsieur
Sorry Monseuir, but I'm not playing along with your, "I want to redefine 'God' to mean 'science" game: it's a vapid and intellectually-dishonest approach which tries to move the pieces and relies on your silly obsfucation.... That's precisely WHY Ishmael just asked you to define God: he's likely seen your tactic before, too.
adamah,
how am i 'redefining' what God is? please DO explain?
I stated that God is power, justice, wisdom, and above all else, love.
Interestingly, the Bible says the EXACT same thing. I have not redefined anything my friend.
The only thing I have done, is apply LOGIC to the understanding of what God is. You , adamah, argue against a literal God ( i do the same thing by the way). But you cannot argue against the FACT that power, justice, wisdom and love do exist, and are very real.
Ismael,
God is a SYMBOL, a representation, nothing else.
A symbol's purpose is to conjure a 'picture' in your mind, a 'picture' that helps you to understand an idea or a concept.
The symbol for 'Poison' for example (skeleton skull) tells you many things, such as 'step away' or ' do not touch', or 'dangerous'.
You can understand all these things with one simple symbol.
-
cantleave
It's a conclusion who's validity isn't supported by any evidence,
As a stand alone statement you are correct. However my comment was not a stand alone statement it was in the context of a thread that was showing that there is no need for a god.