if God isn't a creator

1. 80

   lovetherainposted 5 years ago

   if God is a natural part of the universe,and didn't create it, is he still considered god is he is our moral authority?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      As the "moral authority" comes from the priesthood rather than a god somewhere, I'd have to say "No".

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Winngertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         God is our moral authority? He creates faulty beings and then blames them for their shortcomings - he even slaughters every man, woman, child, infant and fetus with a flood, he's okay with rape (he did rape Mary to have his baby), craps on women, demonstrated his insecurity issued over and over again, he's untrustworthy, etc to name a few. The universe doesn't need god. God(s) was created by man sometime in the Middle Bronze Age..

         replyreport
   2. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      God has been defined many ways throughout the history of mankind, some more moral than others.  In some cases the "he" is actually a she.  I'm also voting no.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If God is the universe we are all a part of God then does that imply he didn't create what we experience as reality?
      
      I would assume God would have to be the moral authority. Who is in a position to know what is good and true on a universal scale? We can certainly try to find the behavior patterns which do no harm, here and now, but other than that, what do we know? Would current standards have survived in any other generation? Competing views have slowly proven themselves to be not in line with where we have evolved in the West, but do our agreed upon standards prevail worldwide? Will they survive, and spread, into the future?
      
      Right here, right now. That's all we have. The universe is vast and time infinite. We are nothing more than fleeting thoughts so tiny when viewed from a timeless universal scale. Even if they are good thoughts there is no evidence to show they are of value enough to be of significance.

      replyreport
2. 73

   cheaptrickposted 5 years ago

   Thoroughly read the old testament and then ask yourself if God is Any Sort of moral authority or a complete psychopath who somehow got off the chain and should be confined to an 8 by 8 foot cell...

   replyreport
   1. 80

      lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible God isn't MY God.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Winngertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Aren't you a little old to still have imaginary friends?

         replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   God is love and logic. To understand our oneness with God is to operate in the light of reality and the realm of harmony and happiness.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That would mean God is a construct of the human brain, for that is what both love and logic are.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Really? It would seem to me that love and logic exist. We simply attempt to define what qualifies as such.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Can't think of a single instance where love existed without a brain.  Can you?  Nor the concept of logic, for that matter; it takes a living brain to design a system of thought to provide that kind of "order".

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Hmm. The living brain exists. So, that means love exists.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That doesn't follow logically, but I do agree that love exists.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't know why that wouldn't follow logically. the brain exists., certainly. But, we didn't invent logic or love. We defined it as such. 
                     
                     Now, you can certainly believe love and logic only exist inside your head and that head had to evolve to a certain point prior to its existence. But, I don't. There is a logic to the make up of the universe. Were there not, we would not have to be logical in order to decipher its greatest mysteries. Mathematics is logic in its purest form. Of course, it could be argued that it is perfectly illogical and we become more and more so as we believe we learn more about it. 
                     
                     Love, too, must have existed prior to the evolution of the human brain; or any brain for that matter. Otherwise one would have to believe we magically created it out of thin air. Do you believe in magic?

                     replyreport
4. 75

   Oztinatoposted 5 years ago

   It takes a living brain to "discover" the logical order pre existing in everything. The logical order was there first not the brain which came billions of years later.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't personally list the natural forces of the universe as a form of logic, nor the results of those forces.  A syllogism is a form of logic; that a rock falls to the ground is a result of forces applied.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Gravity, maths, geometry etc always existed. These phenomena are supremely logical and precise in their behaviour.
         People later "discovered" them.
         It is a common embarrasing ethical error for people to think they "invented" them.
         Newton didn't invent gravity.
         All basic universal phenomena are unreachable by science in terms of being fully explained. The latest most advanced explanations all resemble philosophy more than science.eg string theory is a philosophy not a science. Such phenomena appear therefore to be closely related to "good ideas" or "God ideas". For no reason these complex precise ideas/laws exist. Hawking calls it jokingly "a free lunch".

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Paul Winngertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Gravity is a scientific theory. Math is an arranged agreement invented by man - everyone has to agree that 2+2=4.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Gravity is the force acting between two bodies - it is measurable and the results are observable, taking it out of the "theory" category.
               
               The only thing about the math is an agreement as to what the digits "2" and "4" and the symbol "+" means; after that it is merely counting.

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You'd be surprised about how many scientists disagree about what gravity is.
               It appears as if it's just a good idea/philosophy.
               Yes the best scientists are still in kindergarten and can only agree that 2+2=4.
               As for the rest there is no agreement.

               replyreport