Is the concept of God just a silly challenge or is there more to it?

[Saint]

Silly challenge to God

Some people use this as proof that God doesn't exist: They say, "God strike me dead in five minutes." Five minutes pass and God doesn't strike them dead. This is so silly to me that it hardly even deserves a response. But I will give one to show how silly it is. Let's say your atheist friend is Fred. You say, "Fred, unless you give me a thousand dollars in the next five minutes, I do not believe you exist." Now, am I justified in rejecting the existence of Fred because Fred doesn't do what I tell him to do? Doesn't that strike you as a rather stupid way of arguing against God's existence?
The question really is, is it a good reason not to believe in someone because they won't do what you tell them to do? In this case, is it a good reason not to believe in the Creator of the universe because he won't jump at your command.

Think about it for a moment. I can't believe in the President of the United States. Why not? Because I told him to come to dinner and he didn't come. I can't believe in a President that won't come to dinner when I tell him to. Do you see how silly that is?

These kinds of questions give a bad name to atheists. There are atheists who are careful and who would never be caught dead making this kind of statement. When you hear an atheist saying something like this, you know that he's silly and small-minded. He doesn't care about being careful about his point of view and he is just saying silly things. He doesn't even take his own atheism seriously. If he did, he'd be a lot more careful than to say a stupid thing like that. Because, obviously, the existence of any conscious being is not contingent upon their obedience to my frivolous commands.

 

[franznietzsche]

Some people use this as proof that God doesn't exist: They say, "God strike me dead in five minutes." Five minutes pass and God doesn't strike them dead. This is so silly to me that it hardly even deserves a response. But I will give one to show how silly it is. Let's say your atheist friend is Fred. You say, "Fred, unless you give me a thousand dollars in the next five minutes, I do not believe you exist." Now, am I justified in rejecting the existence of Fred because Fred doesn't do what I tell him to do? Doesn't that strike you as a rather stupid way of arguing against God's existence?
The question really is, is it a good reason not to believe in someone because they won't do what you tell them to do? In this case, is it a good reason not to believe in the Creator of the universe because he won't jump at your command.

Think about it for a moment. I can't believe in the President of the United States. Why not? Because I told him to come to dinner and he didn't come. I can't believe in a President that won't come to dinner when I tell him to. Do you see how silly that is?

These kinds of questions give a bad name to atheists. There are atheists who are careful and who would never be caught dead making this kind of statement. When you hear an atheist saying something like this, you know that he's silly and small-minded. He doesn't care about being careful about his point of view and he is just saying silly things. He doesn't even take his own atheism seriously. If he did, he'd be a lot more careful than to say a stupid thing like that. Because, obviously, the existence of any conscious being is not contingent upon their obedience to my frivolous commands.

Yes it is a silly argument. Here's one that isn't: There is no non-apriori reason that a God must exist. Therefore, proceeding by the laws of logic, there is no non-apriori reason to believe in God. If the existence of something can only be supported by an a priori then its existence is speculative at best, and more importantly untenable as a logical conclusion. Thus there is no logical way to conclude God exists.

Now i wait to see if there are any intellgent "pro-God" counters to this argument (i have thought of only one, though that leads to a logical stalemate between the two, which i feel is the inevitable result of any truly logical discussion on this topic)

 

[jammieg]

I think the belief in god stems from a conditioned feeling brought on by being raised by loving parents or evil parents, not for sure, but then I still choose to believe in god even if it stems from a conditioning although my god is a bumbling idiot.

 

[Janitor]

is it a good reason not to believe in the Creator of the universe because he won't jump at your command. - Saint

I am reaching way back to my childhood church days on this, but I am pretty sure that the New Testament has a scripture that goes about like this: Whatsoever ye ask for, ask it in His name, and it shall be done.

I don't see any wiggle room there. The Christian God has promised that He will indeed jump at the command of any human who believes in Him. His failure to do so would eliminate the possiblity that He exists.

 

[olde drunk]

what if god is a super consciousness? as we jointly create a consciousness of our country, all humanity (and whatever else there is) contributes to a super consciousness that we can call god.

this would allow feewill and accept all experiences as contributing to the expansion of mr(s) super-consciousness.

hey, let's really strech the concept of god and/or atheism.

my traditional god sucked too, so i looked for a better understanding.

believing or not in a god means little. now, do atheists believe that they exist beyond this life and this world. believing in an eternal life is intuitive and adds meaning. including a god only complicates the trip.

love&peace,
olde drunk