I don’t want to get into a discussion of the existence of God because positions are so entrenched by both sides that it would be pointless.
No, my question is: What is the point of God now?
Thousands of years ago early man quite reasonably assumed that gods must have made the world. They had to be appeased. Today with our knowledge of evolution, Big Bang theory etc a creating god is superfluous.
Again, early man ascribed all disease and illness to the gods being angry. They had to be appeased. Today with our knowledge of microscopic viruses we understand disease. God is superfluous in this regard.
Also, early man thought earthquakes and volcanoes were punishments from the gods. They had to be appeased. Today with our knowledge of seismic activity this punishing god is superfluous.
With limited scientific knowledge it is quite understandable and reasonless to believe in gods. Today we are armed with the science to explain everything.
So what is the point of God now?
@pianoman1 saidSo what is the point of God now?
I don’t want to get into a discussion of the existence of God because positions are so entrenched by both sides that it would be pointless.
No, my question is: What is the point of God now?
Thousands of years ago early man quite reasonably assumed that gods must have made the world. They had to be appeased. Today with our knowledge of evolution, Big Bang theory etc a cre ...[text shortened]... n gods. Today we are armed with the science to explain everything.
So what is the point of God now?
The complete answer could well fill several volumes, but I'll give it a go:
God gave us the law (the commandments) not to unduly restrict us, but to keep us from destroying ourselves and each other, but he did not do so, then simply depart the scene. God is omnipotent, he watches over us, guides us, and tests us. IMHO that is the "point" of God now.
@pianoman1 saidFor those who need them, God figures ~ and the religions that are built around them [with instructions, threats, promises etc.] ~ serve a purpose in uniting people, supporting structures in society, developing trust and cooperation, and for those whose moral compasses might not function without a perceived divine lawgiver, Gods/religions provide them with what they think is an objective, moral north star, so to speak.
So what is the point of God now?
@pianoman1 saidHope for and belief in an afterlife.
No, my question is: What is the point of God now?
@divegeester saidWhy?
Hope for and belief in an afterlife.
I’m quite happy not believing in an afterlife.
@pianoman1 saidAre you asking why some people enjoy having hope for and faith in there being life after death?
Why?
@pianoman1 saidThanks for the update.
I’m quite happy not believing in an afterlife.
Several billion other people in the world currently, and many more billions previously, and other billions in the future find solace, peace, hope and direction in believing in an afterlife.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@pianoman1 saidMaybe something like the opposite of a point -- more of an expansion into a greater consideration if not comprehension.
@mchillGod is omnipotent, he watches over us, guides us, and tests us.
How do you know? As an atheist I don’t need somebody to watch over me! I’m very happy muddling through life, making mistakes and learning from them, being kind and charitable to my fellow man. What is the point of God now?
@divegeester saidI missed this aspect from my answer to Pianoman1's question.
Hope for and belief in an afterlife.
The personal and private solace and aspiration that faith provides are important, regardless of whether the God in question is real.
Your "hope and belief" are not, for you, the "point of God"; instead, they are the effect of believing in God.
That effect is real whether or not the aforementioned God is real.
@kevin-eleven removed their quoted postThis thread isn’t about how you personally deal with “people who clearly believe in an afterlife”.. which incidentally is by you metaphorically floating word-salads on a pond.
And it’s obvious that your lack of coherent contribution to any thread in this forum reveals not a self-proclaimed sort of debate altruism, but rather an inability to address on-topic content.