So I was talking with a friend that I thought might be an atheist. He had told me that he no longer believed in religion. I asked if he believed in God, if he did, what was the nature of that god. He said he did and that god created the world and the people but not evil, evil was created by man. He went on to say that God didn't intervene in the world at all, ever, the mess the world was in was our own making. The last bit was that God loved everyone, forgave everyone and welcomed everyone into heaven. (He sorta got a strange look on his face when I asked if God forgave and welcomed Hitler into heaven and gave a very sheepish yes)

I asked my friend where he got this idea of heaven, what scriptures, and he said he said that that it wasn't in any scripture that it was just what god had to be. "Had to be?" I asked. The response "Well, would you want the Christian God?"

Ugh, this person didn't like the Christian God because the Christian God didn't intervene and stop evil and suffering, so he made-up a version that he liked and firmly believes that this made-up thing is a real god!

How can someone make something up the believe it is real?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 01:36PM by MJ.

I think that people who believe start out with a religious (Christian, Mormon, Jewish, etc.) version of God. Then they think about what a spiritually advanced being would most likely be like, and they modify their original conception from there.

I hesitate to say that most Christians do this, but I don't think it's unusual at all. There is more of a tradition of freedom of thought in mainstream Christianity than you would find in Mormonism.

That darn deism rears its ugly head once again.

Oh well.
The majority of the founding fathers were deists so he is in good company.

And yes, his made up beliefs are silly.

You wrote: "Well, would you what the Christian God?"

I couldn't really tell from the context what you had meant to type. Would you please correct this? I'm interested.

The person I was talking to asked that as a way of justifying his belief in the God he made up. I gave a very short version of the discussion, but the basics boiled down to the person believing in his version because he didn't like any other version available.

This is how the line you quoted should have read (my mistake):

"Well, would you want the Christian God?"

All "Gods" are made up, but if you're going to believe in one you might as believe in one you made up yourself, that will give you the most comfort.

I should have made a distinction between those that believe in a God based on some evidence, like scripture, where thy can honestly believe that it is not made up vs. those that should know for certain that it is made up because they were the person that made it up.

Freeman is exactly right, nevertheless, I understand your point. From whence does a person get his or her own specific concept of god? Scripture? Tradition? Oral history? The Word on the Street?

Here's another wrinkle. Everyone actually has two gods. The first god is the one we read about in scriptures or hear about on Sunday or discuss in a class on theology. The other god is the one that becomes the rationale for daily activities. The two are not the same. The first is formal, doctrinal, perhaps philosophical. The second is pragmatic and provides a justification for the things we do. The first only exists when we bother to stop and think about god or God but the second is the actor behind the scenes of our emotional brain.

Since when is scripture considered evidence ?

If you serve on a jury in the USA, one think you learn about "evidence" is that you have to evaluate the evidence and decide for yourself it is true or not (HINT: Evidence does not need to be TRUE to be considered evidence)

If I invented a God, and wrote about Him (complete with capitlised "H") would that be considered either "evidence" or "scripture"?

Because really, the only difference between that and the Bible, is a matter of scale.

The question as to the VALIDITY of that "evidence is another story. It is also a question as to if the "evidence" actually does lead to the conclusion that Frodo existed.

And again to go back to court case, personal testimony is considered evidence even it it is not true.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 04:16PM by MJ.

So what? How do his personal beliefs affect you?