Do I want to know if I am wrong?
I was raised to believe in a God. In my opinion, it doesn't matter which, what matters is that the belief was that there is an all-knowing entity that created and pervades all that was, is and will be, and it has absolute power.
Now, I do not believe. The reason I do not believe is as an adult, this notion does not align with my experience as a human thus far. At no point in my life have I felt the presence of this being, I have seen no direct evidence that can only be explained by it and the odd times I have decided to have a chat, only my own voice answered.
This doesn't mean I do not leave room for its existence though. It is not that I am hedging my bets, it is that I am awaiting evidence. I do not deny that there may be a creator, I just will hold belief until proof comes forth and greets me.
And it would have to come to me for I understand that if it does exist as all that is, I am already inside it. Does the blood cell know of the body in which it travels?
Therefore, God would have to take some form that is acceptable for my mind to welcome and reveal itself to me directly. And I mean directly. I have to have no shadow of a doubt by definition and because so many people are invested in certain outcomes and benefit from groups holding certain beliefs, I cannot ever trust the words of another.
Now, many of the true believers I have met say that they have experienced God and know it to be true. The problem is, they have been from several different faiths that do not always accept the Gods of others. This means that either God can be whatever you want it to be, one of them only is correct, there is one God masquerading as many, or they are delusional and even if there is a God, they have not necessarily come across it directly, but pretend or 'feel' they have.
I can't trust the senses of others as they are personal. There is no way for me to get nutritional value from the food they eat. So if they have actually come across God, they cannot convey the feeling or experience to me adequately. If they are delusional, I do not say there is no God, I can just understand that they have not met it so far.
If God is masquerading as all Gods, which I find quite immature for a God to do, then those that have actually witnessed it, still do not understand enough to realise that it is all the same God. To me, that makes their actions incomplete and their insistence at their correctness, folly.
If only one of the groups is correct and I do not belong to any group I will be bound to experience whatever the correct group's God has planned for non-believers. Along with the majority of the world who also got it wrong.
Which leaves God as whatever one wants it to be. So, since a God is all powerful, all-wise and all-merciful in my opinion, that would make it all-understanding and all-forgiving also.
My God would would completely and totally understand my lack of blind faith in what I have not experienced since it is also me and knows all I do, think and intend. Thus, would forgive me unconditionally for it is all-loving, making its love unconditional.
As my God is all-loving, I have nothing to fear for God is all, making all loved by God. My God doesn't care that you believed in a wrong God and will forgive everyone in its all loving understanding. And, if God doesn't exist, I won't have wasted too much time contemplating the existence of something that unless it directly presents itself, is unknowable.
Now, people can criticise my view of God/No God but essentially it is beyond reproach except from an external view, which of course is not external at all, as it still resides inside my God. There is no way out of my God, there is no arguing and every bit of evidence that is found contrary, is not at all for all that is possible is possible. That is the definition of a God, right?
If the definition of a God is all-knowing, all-wise and the creator of all, anything possible is actually an act of God, including all of the things that all of the other people say their God forbids. How can God forbid its own possible actions?
That would include the thoughts and actions of a non-believer.
So, until that direct meeting takes place, I will continue on doing what I think is Godly. That is, helping where I can, adding value where I can and accepting that other people may be right or wrong in their beliefs too.
If there is no God, I still won't be an asshole. And if there is a God, not being an asshole might still get me into its good graces. Either way I will find out eventually.
What will be will be. God or no God.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Well, that's actually by definition right. The only thing that everyone might tell you is that your would be doing right, unless you know deep down that you have chosen a "wrong" God, just because you didn't like what the "right" God for you.
It is thus of note that the "right" God would be the God you were taught to get to know since you were a child (unless you weren't), so the only appropriate reason to "change" God would be not by actually changing, but actually going deeper..
By getting to know this God, this very God will lead you to the path to be follow, which may imply changing religion or not. If you changed religion because your own God told you to, would be the most appropriate thing. And this happens.
This is what many people fail to do, as they would not dig deep into their own religion, and connect to such God, but rather they just do the things they believe the are supposed to do, because they would not even care to understand their own religion.
On the other hand, you have your typical Scripture guy (be it Bible, Quran, you name it), who won't go beyond quoting things, and follow things just because it is written and adjusts to their single interpretation. These people hardly get to know their religion, for their religion is a book, not a God. And they would change religion because their Book was not what they expected, or they found a Book they like more, or explains things better for them.
If there is a god, religion, a book or another person is not required to see it.
If there is a god, I would suggest that that which is external is a hindrance to seeing it at all for for one to see it, the relationship would have to be between god and the individual with no intermediary.
this is correct.
Then you would assume such God does not want you to cooperate with the rest of humankkind
Cooperation between humans has nothing to do with Gods as I see it. Cooperation can go on with or without a God. And a God would exist even if no one believed.
Anything human-related is God related. You, yourself, said it was all inside or something like that.
no, not really. the connection is personal, that's different.
it does not assume that. it assumes you look inward for guidance, rather than consulting the blind.
You forgot to mention the possibility for all of them to be wrong.
I always wonder how could one believe that god is all loving while there is o much suffering in the world. Why would you even consider the existence of an all loving god while there are children dying during the first months or years of their lives? Either a god exists that does not mind suffering and doesn't care about justice, or a god doesn't exists. A just god would be very hard to reconcile with the reality we are seeing.
Yes, they can all be wrong. mentioned now, but a bit redundant. :)
I don't believe in God, so my imagined one is all-loving. when that one turns up and presents itself, all the suffering will end and I will ride my black, flying unicorn into the sunset.
LOL :D
I'm not sure I understand what is the point of the thought experiment of imaging one then? To show that even if you are wrong, it would be unlikely for a god to punish you as a disbeliever?
I think if there turns out to really be a god, it would be most surprising if that being would be all-loving. An all-powerful all-loving creator should have created a world with less suffering, death and injustice.
Thought experiments for me are just to get my mind working. Attempting to put myself in the mind of a psychopath doesn't mean I want to be one.
If there is a god, it is likely immature and bumbling like a toddler learning to master a complex task.
I see. Then we agree more than I initially realized, so I apologize for misunderstanding your sentiment.
You are forgiven my son. :P
Thank you, appreciated :D
On other hand....
I think that what matters is what we do while we are here, alive on this earth. I don't believe that the existence or non-existence of God would change how I choose to live, or how I feel I should live, so it really doesn't matter to me.
Nor should it change you on my opinion.
I think many are 'God fearing' for they do not live up to their own belief system. Know yourself before attempting to know a God. Perhaps it may even be a faster approach.
That's a very good point I think!
Bravo!! Well said.
I believe in the God of Spinoza
You may be right. Or wrong. We shall see.
I know I am right because I believe in the Infinite Universe and that is all
That is not all, all that is. :)
Would you mind naming all these faiths you referred to?
The ones I have spoken with over the years?
If you really take the time to read the Old Testament and the Quran ... really read it, all of it you will see that God is an evil Monster who kills everyone except for Noah and his family.... I was astounded at how cruel and evil both YHVH and Allah are.... now Jesus and the Buddha are a different story - they teach great wisdom
Wisdom and god need not be related.
God is a Monster ...
If god is, that is the all. If god is not, then there is no monster.
You are right to seek G-d, and to try to understand Him. You are right that He is forgiving, and merciful. It is also wrong I think for people to pretend that they have experiences with G-d when they don't.
I think, because G-d is so infinitely vast and pure and powerful it is hard for any of us to grasp what He truly is. He wants to show His greatness through grace, mercy, and forgiveness--unconditional love. Yet He also wants to share with us His nature. It's like when a couple are married for so long, and know each other so well they complete each others sentences, and when one passes away, it's like the person left is only half a person.
The desire for intimacy with man, not only to be gracious, but also to share His very nature with us, is the basic idea behind the Jesus coming to Earth. If we choose only to see G-d as a dispenser of grace, and not as something infinitely vast and pure, we are missing something. If we discount the value of suffering, we misunderstand the nature of Christ, and G-d.
I wish you the best, Taraz. There is a book, written by a once harsh skeptic of the Gospel, whose name is Lee Stroebel (https://www.amazon.com/Lee-Strobel/e/B001H6KH8G) if should want to see some rational reasons for believing in Christ as G-d.
I appreciate you taking the time and will grant you that it is very possible but my caveat with your words for your god would be he wants, he is god, he wants for nothing for he is all. Right?
The rationalisation for a belief to me seems an oxymoron. A justification perhaps. For me to believe, there would have to be no belief. It would have to be unshadowed fact in my opinion.
I am not saying there is no creator, I am saying I have doubts. Lots of shadows. Hence the need for a direct view.
Hope all is well with you.
It is well. Keep posting! G-d loves questions!
As do I. Does that make me... :)
If he wanted to reveal himself, why is he playing hide-n-seek with us? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for him to wave to us from heavens and make sure we have real reasons to believe instead of not providing any good evidence for his own existence?
I'm curious, which of Lee Stroebel's reasons do you find convincing?