Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

I've been remarking about this in other threads, but I think it's about time I start a dedicated thread about it to see whether I took a wrong turn in reasoning somewhere and not to trespass on those threads.

The reason for this train of thought was that people have a certain outlook on God and religion based on their personal experiences and background. Based on that and for the sake of the subject of this thread I am going to make two disclaimers. God's existence and it's characteristics cannot objectively be proven. If you have a problem with this, no worries, there are a host of other threads to vent any issues you might have with this. Second disclaimer is that I'm not arguing here: God is this or that. My conviction is still God's existence and characteristics are unknown. My argument is going to be: based on my personal experiences and those of others, it's not unreasonable to conclude that God could be like this.

One problem I faced was the many different ideas about God that exist. This is caused precisely because the interaction is a very personal one. If it's characteristics are determined by personal experiences, but there is only one God then it stands to reason that God presents itself in different ways to different people but is still the same god.

Next problem is a personal one. I'm an atheist. But I do allow for the possibility that God exists, however remote I might feel that possibility is. This is why I felt I needed to give this possibility a little more attention and see whether I could conjure up an image of God based on my own personal experiences, since this is the same way theist arrive at the way they see God. The one problem that becomes immediately apparent is, I have none of these personal experiences. So I'll need to incorporate that in my hypothetical theism. The same God who has manifested himself to others and sparked their religious believes has not manifested itself to me. When God has manifested himself to people, he has done so in many different ways and people have had varying spiritual experiences as a result of that.

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence. For me personally this means that God has a reason for not being in contact with me. God knows me. It knows I will not take the word of others, however much spiritual authority they may claim to have. It knows I have been open to personal contact and tried to get in touch but got no response. Cruel as it may seem at the time, it would have it's reasons.

This does mean however that proselytizing is going against the will of God. Would someone convince me to believe in God, it would be without those personal experiences which people use as the base for their spirituality. In other words, I'd be 'damned' by people who try to 'save' me since I'd be going against what my personal experiences have revealed to me.

Does that make any sense … at all?

 

[Yoda Power]

Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.
So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence. For me personally this means that God has a reason for not being in contact with me. God knows me. It knows I will not take the word of others, however much spiritual authority they may claim to have. It knows I have been open to personal contact and tried to get in touch. Cruel as it may seem at the time, he would have it's reasons.

Following your own logic, how do you know that God is aware of your existance? What gives you a reason to know he's all knowing?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Following your own logic, how do you know that God is aware of your existance? What gives you a reason to know he's all knowing?

I know nothing of God. You raised a valid other possibility. My view on God is as much influenced by the culture I live in as the next person. And this influence is seen by me assuming it is all-knowing. Now I think about it, I probably made that assumption to try to connect to those who frequent here who do have the conviction it is all-knowing and try to spark a response.

 

[LucyDuke]

It does make sense.

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence.

...

Would someone convince me to believe in God, it would be without those personal experiences which people use as the base for their spirituality. In other words, I'd be 'damned' by people who try to 'save' me since I'd be going against what my personal experiences have revealed to me.

But I'm not sure what the point is. If there's a god, we're all going to experience that differently, inconsistently from person to person? If we don't experience god, we're supposed to disbelieve? Of what use is such a being? How is that meaningfully different from people imagining and interpreting things the way they like to?

Heh, maybe it doesn't make sense. (I may have misunderstood.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What use am I? What use are you? We just are, God just is. And when it comes to why God would not want/does not desire me to believe, I plead the "mysterious ways".

And I don't really agree I imagined God the way I like to, but rather a way that explains my personal experiences as opposed to other people's. As Yoda pointed out, there are more reasonable explanations possible, so I'm also not claiming this is the way it's got to be.

 

[onedreamer]

Does that make any sense … at all?

Yeah. My idea is that the day you stop trying to give "God" an image, you will be much closer to actually form your opinion and understand its nature, or not... in case you won't feel anything. As you already said, do not listen to tales from other peoples because spirituality is personal. Which is also why religions are a scam IMO, since they all are based on someone else "beliefs". There is nothing spiritual in following someone's else ideas, that's called something else I won't mention not to hurt too much the sensibility of people who think they are spiritual if they follow someone's else dogmas. You should follow your ideas.
The first place where I would start is the definition of this superhuman entity. Stop calling it God and find your own definition, that would bring you closer to *your* thoughts. If a superhuman entity that created us exists, we should not need a book written thousands years ago in unknown circumstances to know something about it and about us. We should only look into ourselves, but this isn't as simply done as it is to say it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I think you make an error

This does mean however that proselytizing is going against the will of God.

is wrong because

God presents itself in different ways to different people but is still the same god

Any presentation involves either a sensory experience, or a new way of interpreting old sensory experiences. In the end, people proselytizing can be God's way of tweaking your thinking or of presenting new data.

Can I say something that doesn't convince you, but causes you to rethink something you've thought of before? Of course! Could this rethinking be, in fact, subconscious? Of course! My proselytizing could be part of a critical chain of how God personalises the message to you.

In fact, both of us could walk away feeling like the proselytising doesn't work, but it actually was an important part of the whole process.

Spoiler wild analogy, which I suck at, fair warning :

As part of the common ground, let us use advertising as an analogy. Suppose you like to think that advertising doesn't work on you. In fact, you think that advertising has a negative effect upon you, because you despise the process.

This would mean that both you, and the person advertising to you, would think that the process is wasted on you. That the sellers would be better off exposing you to advertising. Is this true? Not necessarily! Suppose Philip Morris advertised to you some cigarettes using a sexy model. Man, that irked you! You're not going to buy that brand now!

But you smoke! But you're not going to buy that brand. Grrr.
But you want a smoke. Not gonna. Pissed off.
Maybe, to sate the urge you go buy a Coke

Wait! They profit from that (through their SABMiller holdings, which bottle Coke).
And the very clever executive knew that advertising to people who didn't like advertising made them more likely to buy Coke. If you use a sexy model in the process ... People buying the cigarettes is just one of the perks of a well-crafted message.

On a personal level, I know that this could be true for me. The moral weakness in interpretation of the Bible that proselytizers commonly disgust me with has maybe caused me to appreciate ways of approaching Christ's message in a much superior way. Maybe Jesus was a prophet, horribly misquoted, and that's how God wanted me to find out! How much has my morality been improved by arguing with wickedness dressed up as righteousness, and how much of that was God's plan? I don't know! But could've been, and so their proselytising, while wrong, was not (theoretically) 'against Gods will'.

The idea of a personally crafted message including the actions of another person easily can be how the Universe communicates with you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I think you make an error


is wrong because

Any presentation involves either a sensory experience, or a new way of interpreting old sensory experiences. In the end, people proselytizing can be God's way of tweaking your thinking or of presenting new data.

Can I say something that doesn't convince you, but causes you to rethink something you've thought of before? Of course! Could this rethinking be, in fact, subconscious? Of course! My proselytizing could be part of a critical chain of how God personalises the message to you.

In fact, both of us could walk away feeling like the proselytising doesn't work, but it actually was an important part of the whole process.

Yeah, that was a little lacking in nuance, I agree. My mistake was brushing all proselytising with one brush and not specifying enough. I'm not sure I go along with the point I think you're trying to make through your analogy though. When more spiritual people than me urge me to look at aspects of life in different ways, like considering a higher power, this will indeed interest me and it would be welcome. I should note that I have little problem with proselytising personally, the people who do it are usually very polite although maybe a little pushy, but hey, that's marketing for you.

However!

The point I made was not about the effectiveness. It was that in the mental picture I constructed of God, there would be no need. It may even push someone off the path intended by God, no matter how well-intentioned. But could that be part of God's plan? Although not the way I described, they are also part of a personal experience, so it might be. It would seem a little too complicated though when there is a direct line to me.

I must say this is the fun part about not having a Bible or a pastor spelling out for you what's what. Every idea you form, has ifs and butts. And I'm free to acknowledge them. There is no holy scripture to contradict. No authority in the matter apart from myself. As far as religions go, I'd strongly advise everyone to try it.

Oh dear, I wasn't proselytising there was I? Can: "make up your own mind" be?

Another thing that puzzles me. Isn't it odd that people say they adhere to religion A or B because of personal experiences? God works funny like that doesn't he? To pick geographical regions to urge people to worship it one way, and other regions another way. That's really one of the things that always seemed weak about organised religions. People have religious experiences which make them not only believe in a God with whom they have a personal connection, it also makes them subscribe to a million things which could not have come forth out of this personal connection. And all it mostly seems to depend upon is which religion is most prominent in the place they live in.

Did God tell individuals to go to church and symbolically eat the body of Christ for instance.

On a personal level, I know that this could be true for me. The moral weakness in interpretation of the Bible that proselytizers commonly disgust me with has maybe caused me to appreciate ways of approaching Christ's message in a much superior way. Maybe Jesus was a prophet, horribly misquoted, and that's how God wanted me to find out! How much has my morality been improved by arguing with wickedness dressed up as righteousness, and how much of that was God's plan? I don't know! But could've been, and so their proselytising, while wrong, was not (theoretically) 'against Gods will'.

The idea of a personally crafted message including the actions of another person easily can be how the Universe communicates with you.

All very good points, and all easy to relate to as well. I think I did narrow down the boundaries of personal experiences too much. There are few more strong than social interactions.

I will surely try to incorporate it into my hypothetical theism. A proselytising job well done

 

[timtofly]

Philosophically if you "know" or even "think you may be right" in describing a God who is all knowing, but this god does not know you, because if He did know you and you know He knows you that leaves an emptiness, because God knows you but could care less to show Himself to you. If God is not all knowing then since He has not stumbled into to you, then you have convinced yourself there is no God. As said by a few, trying to understand God by human reasoning does not seem to follow, for by definition, a God would be outside of human reasoning, or the human reasoned God would have manifested itself already.

That brings us to the point can a Human reason a God, or has God always been and we are the result of that God? Another point would be if there is a God, how can Science disprove God and/or even a personal God which we have individually reasoned for ourselves? Since God came first in whatever form, and Science came later as man used the reasoning more and more and threw off the shackles of "religion". So man first reasoned a God (mans existance), then man felt the burden of this God and reasoned Science to free himself from his original reasoning, thus we have evolved. There is this one small problem and that is morality. Why cannot man get along with others? Why does religion make some people free and others feel free through science and reasoning? If that is the case have some people evolved further than other people? How can we all be equal in this case?

Why can we with science prolong life, heal the sick, and go to the moon, but we can not solve the question of murder, slavery, bigotry, wars, famine, earthquakes, tornados? After science has failed, God says. I will be waiting for you. I sent my Son, who you rejected, but I still stand here waiting. Now this is my reasoning of God and I cannot answer why Science disproves that there is a God. All I can do is ask questions, and post my opinions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Philosophically if you "know" or even "think you may be right" in describing a God who is all knowing, but this god does not know you, because if He did know you and you know He knows you that leaves an emptiness, because God knows you but could care less to show Himself to you. If God is not all knowing then since He has not stumbled into to you, then you have convinced yourself there is no God. As said by a few, trying to understand God by human reasoning does not seem to follow, for by definition, a God would be outside of human reasoning, or the human reasoned God would have manifested itself already

What?

 

[BasketCase]

One problem I faced was the many different ideas about God that exist. This is caused precisely because the interaction is a very personal one. If it's characteristics are determined by personal experiences, but there is only one God then it stands to reason that God presents itself in different ways to different people but is still the same god.

So? This same thing happens with just about everything else on this planet.

Take global warming, for instance. I picked that one specifically because I know your view of it is very different from mine. Global warming is either it's happening, or it's not. It's definitely doing exactly one of those things. There Is One Global Warming, so to speak.

You and I look at the same thing, and end up with different viewpoints on it.

Global warming, abortion, gun control, the Iraq War (either one). Different people look at the same planet and the same events, and everybody sees the same thing differently. So, no. I don't see any reason why God should mold Himself/Herself/Itself/Themselves to any one person's perceptions. God is what He/She/It/They is/are, and we all simply see Him/Her/It/Them differently.


You'd probably get a much better view of God, not through your own perceptions, but through everybody else's. Examine the viewpoints of seven billion humans, and it becomes pretty clear that there's either no God at all, or He/She/It/They is simply staying out of our business and not getting involved.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So? This same thing happens with just about everything else on this planet.

Take global warming, for instance. I picked that one specifically because I know your view of it is very different from mine. Global warming is either it's happening, or it's not. It's definitely doing exactly one of those things. There Is One Global Warming, so to speak.

You and I look at the same thing, and end up with different viewpoints on it.

Global warming, abortion, gun control, the Iraq War (either one). Different people look at the same planet and the same events, and everybody sees the same thing differently. So, no. I don't see any reason why God should mold Himself/Herself/Itself/Themselves to any one person's perceptions. God is what He/She/It/They is/are, and we all simply see Him/Her/It/Them differently.

Yeah, that's what I said. Also that God doesn't change/mold, just interacts in different ways, or none. Like you'd expect.

You'd probably get a much better view of God, not through your own perceptions, but through everybody else's. Examine the viewpoints of seven billion humans, and it becomes pretty clear that there's either no God at all, or He/She/It/They is simply staying out of our business and not getting involved.

Well a lot of people claim a sort of interacting. So I have to consider the third option it only gets involved with some, in different ways.

 

[BasketCase]

Yeah, that's what I said. Also that God doesn't change/mold, just interacts in different ways, or none. Like you'd expect.

Well, your tendency to read my posts wrong has certainly not changed.

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence.

I was going at this angle: maybe God actually interacts with everybody the same way (and wants everybody to experience Him the same way)--it could simply be our perceptions that are different.

For me personally this means that God has a reason for not being in contact with me.

Perhaps God really has been trying to get in touch with you--you could simply be missing his calls. (IMO he simply doesn't exist, but I've been wrong three times in my life, and this could be that fourth time......)

 

[Huayna Capac357]

This does mean however that proselytizing is going against the will of God.

IIRC, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, among other religions, believe that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, your tendency to read my posts wrong has certainly not changed.

Are you going to be like this Baskie?

Fine by me, but I'd like to know beforehand, so I can act accordingly, namely not at all

I was going at this angle: maybe God actually interacts with everybody the same way (and wants everybody to experience Him the same way)--it could simply be our perceptions that are different.

Maybe. But that's not what I've experienced.

Read the OP again, I think you missed a key part in it.

Perhaps God really has been trying to get in touch with you--you could simply be missing his calls. (IMO he simply doesn't exist, but I've been wrong three times in my life, and this could be that fourth time......)

Could be, but that doesn't change anything about how I experienced it. As I said in the OP, I'm basing the image I constructed on personal experiences, the same as people I have talked to who are religious. The same counter could be used. Maybe those people are not experiencing God but something else and mistaking call that God. It's subjective and that's exactly what I'm talking about.

And being wrong is great. It means room to learn. If you've only been wrong 3 times in your life, well, the implication is clear.

 

[Hehehe]

One problem I faced was the many different ideas about God that exist. This is caused precisely because the interaction is a very personal one. If it's characteristics are determined by personal experiences, but there is only one God then it stands to reason that God presents itself in different ways to different people but is still the same god.

Man created God in his own image

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which means in my case God is devilishly handsome.

 

[BasketCase]

Are you going to be like this Baskie?

Yeah, I can't help it. I'm allergic to bullcrap.

Read the OP again, I think you missed a key part in it.

I had it right the first time:

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence.

You seem to be saying God wants different people to experience him in different ways. Have I got that right?? How bout I stop here and wait for a yes or a no? Oh, and next time you go claiming I got something wrong? If you don't actually point out what I said that was wrong (you did not, after all, tell me what part of your post I actually missed), your claim doesn't carry a lot of weight.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You seem to be saying God wants different people to experience him in different ways.

I said it is a possibility. I said it is unknown what God wants. I'll direct you to the part you missed:

Second disclaimer is that I'm not arguing here: God is this or that. My conviction is still God's existence and characteristics are unknown. My argument is going to be: based on my personal experiences and those of others, it's not unreasonable to conclude that God could be like this.

This means there are many other interpretations possible. And I didn't say yours was wrong: "Maybe. But that's not what I've experienced.", "Could be, but that doesn't change anything about how I experienced it."

Now if you don't want to talk about this in a civil way, this will be the last time I'll respond to you.

 

[punkbass2000]

I would like to respond to this thread, but I will need to let it sit a while longer.