If God is all powerful and created human. How come God in endowed with human emotions? Shouldn't he or she be beyond that?
If God is all powerful and created human. How come God in endowed with human emotions? Shouldn't he or she be beyond that?
Assuming we’re discussing the Abrahamic God, He used to be much smaller in scope; in fact, He was the ancient Jewish War God, back when they had a full polytheistic pantheon. So if we’re going back to the original myths, He didn’t really create humans, nor was He all-powerful or all-seeing, or ‘above-it-all’ in general.
(This is back in the days when Gods were more seen as local clan/town sponsors, like how Athena is the patron God of Athens. He was just a tribal patron god, one they prayed to in order to be safe and successful in war.)
Also, back then Gods in general were written as being much closer to humans, in term of emotions and motivations—again, Greek mythology gives a good showing of this, but you can read a lot of ancient myths and see it in play.
As Jehovah became more and more popular (due to all the wars in the region), He started to absorb many of the myths and abilities of the rest of the pantheon, which is why He seems kind of schizophrenic in the older stories. YHWH was actually the head of the pantheon, and as Jehovah supplanted Him as the ancient proto-Jewish tribes moved towards monotheism, the two Gods ended up essentially being merged with each other.
Still, back then, while Gods were seen as powerful, they were still somewhat seen as limited and fallible. In fact even today there is a strong Jewish tradition of questioning God (albeit politely and a bit indirectly so as not to get turned into salt or whatever).
But, as Judaism grew, and split off into Christianity and Islam, God’s followers began tack on more and more powers and abilities to make Him sound cooler (and increase the power of the Church). So that’s where the ‘all-seeing’ and ‘all-powerful’ Great-God-of-Everything business comes from, really.
TL;DR ‘God wasn’t all-powerful and was ‘written’ to have emotions much closer to humans when those creation myths were first being told.
Because it's all made up. It's foolish to expect any of it to make sense or be consistent.
First prove that this god even exists, then maybe we can have a discussion about it's properties.
Because main evolved advantageous uses for emotion. We cry, and no longer have to communicate with words that something is wrong. It is advantageous to us to be able to communicate with emotions in more than a vocal manner. Things make more sense when we consider the real reasons they came into being. "We" have probably had these emotions for far longer than we could be considered humans.
The answer to this is going to differ heavily from religion to religion. You've already been inundated with the atheist and agnostic response. Christian theology could give you a few different answers.
The Bible could been seen as man's interpretation of God, therefore God's will is placed in terms we understand: emotions. Calling God jealous, angry, sorrowful, or joyful is a lot easier than asking you to understand a four-dimensional physical space. The latter is beyond your perception, much like understanding the "feelings" God exhibits, so it is simplified to terms you can understand.
The second potential answer would be: why wouldn't he/she be? You've made the assumption that emotions are bad or wrong, but if you throw out that assumption, there's nothing wrong with an emotional God. Maybe being "beyond that" is in fact a mistake? If he/she made us in his/her image, then of course we are given emotions similiar to God. Ultimately, who are you or I to judge whether such feelings are good or bad, or make a being imperfect?
Admittedly, I am deeply agnostic myself, because I ultimately don't buy any of the explinations I've provided here. But I've taken time and energy to understand Western theology, rather than dismiss it out of hand, and these are the explinations I suspect you are likliest to find.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it's all made up.
Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it's all made up.
Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.
Theology is not a belief in God. It is a study of the belief in God, the connection between humankind and the possibility of God, and the philosophies grounded in religious doctrine. Saying that trying to understand theology is a waste of time is the same as saying that trying to understand any social science is a waste of time.
You may dismiss the beliefs as "all made up", but their impact on our world is very real. Is studying politics a waste of time because it's "all made up"? Or are the arbitrary thoughts and feelings on how the world should be run suddenly more important because we've removed a belief that you personally disagree with?
All religion can be dismissed out of hand. There has been literally no evidence for the supernatural ever at any time that can be verified objectively.
Why are people like you continuing to pretend the supernatural has any bearing on reality? Astounding.
Your ignorance on the topic of religion is what is astounding here. Reducing religion to "the supernatural" is to ignore centuries of philosophy and social theory.
While widely practiced religion, particularly in the Western world, has been disgustingly reduced to nothing more than a series of corporate institutions vying for social and financial power, this does not represent "religion" as a field.
People seek an understanding of the universe, and an answer to all the existential questions they have. Many people suffer existential dread as a result of their powerlessness in the face of the unknown. Seeking answers through religion is one way to quell such concerns and fears. Whether or not you agree with it, it has provided comfort to millions of people who suffer very natural, human fears.
People also want to know what it means to be "good" and live a "good life." Religion has provided a number of philosophical frameworks in which to seek such answers. If you wish to dismiss all religion out of hand, you're fundamentally discarding much of the basis for modern philosophy as well. You're basically left with consequentialism, which has a number of serious pitfalls.
Religion is a lot more than the belief in God.
Its just a conversation bro, you can chill out
Going down the God rabbit hole is frustrating and ultimately unsatisfying. Every answer boils down to faith, which is basically belief without proof.
To paraphrase someone: If God is all-good, then God can’t be all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then God can’t be all-good.
I probably sound like I’m being dismissive of people who believe in God. That’s not my intent. Faith can be a healthy source of strength in difficult times, and when dealing with our chaotic world. I only have an issue when blind faith is allowed to override common sense, like not getting your kids vaccinated, or drinking raw milk.
“There is no god but man.” - Aleister Crowley
God didn’t design us in his image, we designed him in ours.
1 In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created him.
2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of names,that he might be Lord of all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3 And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.
4 And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.
5 And these lesser men were cast into the void; And some were burned, and some were put apart from their kind.
6 And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.
7 But as all these things came to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung.
8 And man saw it not.
9 But for Christ's sake he'd better start looking.
- from the aqualung album cover - jethro tull.
“God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs”
This is "no stupid questions," but asking rational questions about religion is a waste of time. In most religions, the answer ultimately "you are too stupid to understand the great plan of god."
You can debate interpretation of religious texts, or how best to follow the laws religions set down; but questioning articles of faith is fruitless.
Christianity is especially full of self-contradictions and paradoxes: can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? You can spend a lifetime poking holes in The Bible, and you will never get a rational, satisfactory answer that isn't based on a version of "you are too stupid/not meant to know."
Many religions are less paradoxical, but the monotheistic ones are mostly just an unbelievable shit-show, unless you're especially susceptible to self-delusion.
No apologies to Christians: your religion is a fucking mess. You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments and come away thinking those are the same God. That the loving, caring one who sacrificed his son for people is the same one who allowed Satan to torture his most faithful worshipper on a bet.
Buddhism and most pagan religions make more sense. Buddhism in particular lacks most of the dependency on mysticism and unprovable articles of faith, and is almost more a philosophy than a religion. Buddhists, I can respect. But Christianity is all sorts of dumb.
Actually, taken by itself, the new testament is mostly OK; if you follow only Christ's teachings, and ignore the peyote trips of post-crucifixion books, like, Revelations, it's a solid basis for a society of decent people. But Christ was a liberal socialist, which is why most organized Christianity leans so heavily on the old testament and ignores Christ's teachings of acceptance, communism, and forgiveness.
Nice .... now I need to learn more about Buddhism and use an ice pick to remove all the information I have about the Christian Bible.
You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments
Do you legitimately think that the same people who get into organized religion, that buy into thought systems that tell them how things are supposed to be and how they should feel about stuff, as a general rule have read their own source material that meticulously?
You don’t have to read it meticulously to see the contrast he’s taking about.
But few actually read it at all. They say they do, but their reading consists of looking up verse numbers they saw on bumper stickers, leafing through the first pages of Genesis, and occasionally reading a random page only to say to themselves, so silently that they are not actually conscious of it: “hm well I don’t know what all that old timey language means but I’m going to go see what’s in the fridge now.”
Projection?
I had a car that didn't like when the weather was cold and damp. It wasn't too happy about being parked on a slope, either.
Did the car actually have human emotions? No, of course not, but as a human it was both easy and natural to frame and process it that way.
Instead of it simply being "God made made in his own image", the truth is probably that there's more than a little of "man made God in his own image" too.
Yeah, all gods have been made by man.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity. For one thing, your car actually exists, even if its emotions do not. Also, believing that your car simply doesn’t like cold and damp weather is a rather harmless belief. For a person to believe that a god’s will reflects their personal wishes and desires is inherently dangerous. I’m not aware of anyone rationalizing hate crimes because they thought the car didn’t like a certain group of people.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity.
I'm not criticising.
People are welcome to follow a religion if they want to.
I know that I can no more disprove the existence of a god than prove the existence of one. I know that anybody doing something bad in the name of a god is either lying or being coerced.
The solution to that question is easy. Your premise is faulty; there is no such thing as a god or gods. They're man made ideas and there is literally zero evidence to support any god exists. There is loads and loads of evidence that each and every god has been created by humans.
If there is such a thing as a god anyway, it is beyond what can ever measured and it also never interferes with human life or any physical process. In that case, it may as well not exist as it literally doesn't do anything, making the question moot.
This is the real answer. Youre aaking why dlebnles can't fly. Well one reason is they don't exist.
... What are dlebnes?
Christian theologians believe in the impassibility of God, which means that God does not have emotions as humans do. Then biblical texts where emotions are attributed to God are explained as anthropomorphism - God using human language to communicate his nature and actions.
How the hell do they explain his "love" then? Seems like they create more problems than they fix with this crap.
"Love" in the scriptures is typically a verb, e.g., "God so loved the world..." It describes an action that God does, not a feeling. God's love is his acting in a loving way towards undeserving people.
Exactly, that's a perfectly theologian explanation, it sounds good, but doesn't stand the least bit of scrutiny.
Already the creation story on the first pages says god created light and saw the light is good. How is it good without subjective emotion?
How exactly are gods emotions supposed to be different. Does good mean something different to god?Religion is nothing but worthless bullshit from start till end.
It’s all made up by humans
Is there proof of a god like at all? Who tf is this mf. Also god caused your misfortune so asking him to help is counterproductive
If you believe God created this place, literally everything is proof of God. It's hard to explain a good one, and particularly one that is both good and interventionalist, but the whole "God created it and left it to rot" idea one can kinda understand the appeal of. It's hard to imagine how this all just popped out of nowhere.
Of course, it solves nothing, as you just shift the problem over to God. But that's besides the point.
I think the religions that allow for multiple and often flawed gods seem easier to believe in, but if you've been taught to believe in some Yahweh spin-off I try not to judge to harshly.
I mean the creation of the universe and the beginning of life are the two big ones, among others. That said you can't have scientific proof for or against a supreme being specifically because the sort of questions you'd ask to confirm or deny the existence of one don't intersect with modern science.
Giving a serious answer with serious consideration that follows serious rules, is impossible with religion, as all the rules are made up, there's no consistency, and they're all silly.
I asked a Christian friend of mine how an all knowing god could be jealous or angry if they were all knowing and the actions of the people they were angry/jealous at were part of his plan.
I never got an answer other than 'mysterious ways'
a better question is 'the problem of evil'
if god is truly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
this is my favorite as the theistic hand-waving needing to resolve it is incredible from the start.
Why would you come to someone's question, not engaging with the question in the slightest, to say "my thing is better"?
questions about god, which is commonly defined as "perfect in every possible way" are irrelevant when it's been demonstrated that god, by that definition, doesn't exist
god didn't "give" people emotions. people evolved that way
needing to resolve it
it's not been resolved, despite millions of apologists dedicating their lives to the problem of evil for thousands of years
every discussion just ends up in "you need to have faith," which literally just means "believe something to be true simply because you want it to be true, without any good reason." and no, "because otherwise where did we come from" (god of the gaps--another fallacy that seems to be the best they can come up with) isn't a good reason
I mean there are some who claim to have solved it. You see, you have to have evil to understand good. Since they think their god is the ultimate good, the more evil you see just proves how good their god is. After all, how can you consider a stick straight if you don't have a crooked one to compare it to?
This is exactly why I believe in an evil god. The problem of good is then easily solved. All that good in the world just proves how truly evil my god is. Burn in hell you sinners... although his punishments might be good? Cause he's evil. I dunno. Trust me it works. Just have faith.
I don't understand why a god would have to be all good as humans understand goodness. I'm more open to the idea that God either set things in motion and stopped caring, or is actively ambivalent and lives to cause a ruckus on occasion for his entertainment. This view allows for the existence of preventable evil.
Because an uncaring or immoral god is unworthy of praise or devotion. Why donate your life or your fortune to a god that created the universe and then fucked off?
And allows for free will.
omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good)
Part of the problem with "The Problem of Evil" is assuming your personal experience turning sour is a sign of an existential "evil". Take this to a macro-level of the natural world and you can argue the wolf eating the sheep is "evil". And the sheep eating the grass is "evil". And the grass polluting our air with coercive oxygen is "evil". But then you're in the position of arguing that existence is evil, which flies in the face of the Abrahamic assumptions of creation.
Does your single bad day refute the eternal existence of the Perfect Being? Does your pessimistic view of the natural order refute a Perfect Being? Or is the problem entirely with your personal limited perception and selfish worldview?
it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.
It seems logically impossible to define "evil" objectively. You're coming into the conversation as an ill-informed and deeply biased observer.
Is the fly evil because it lays maggots on your meat? Is the spider evil for killing the fly? Is the rabbit evil for killing the spider? Are you evil for killing the rabbit? Well, then why are you complaining about the fly spoiling your dinner?
Humans seem to define evil merely as unpleasantness, as though "pleasant" and "good" are synonymous. But if you just want to feel pleasant all the time, we've got a tool for that. It's called heroin. Shoot up until you waste away and then tell me that God Is Great, because you've lost the ability to perceive your misery. Your actions will be perfectly predictable and your behaviors extremely pliable, while your sensations are entirely blissful. Is this the Divine Perfection you're looking for?
That side is definitely the most interesting, but the reverse side of the Problem of Evil is interesting too: if there is no god/God, then why do we call things evil. How can we apply some objective morality if everything is random and subjective?
There are good and interesting arguments related to evolution creating a sense of common morality, like an instinct, to drive behavior that is beneficial to the continuation of the species and a bloodline. But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a 'survival of the fittest' framework.
Like I said, at the very least it is interesting
He wanted a good plot arc leading up to robots not just starting with robots right off the rip
Well you kind of have the thing reversed.
All gods are created by man in mans image. And gods are generally exactly as selfish childish (narcissistic) and emotional as a 4 year old, because that's the mentality of the people with the delusions that created the gods in the first place. And then the people who think they know what god is and want.The answer differs depending on which religion/sect/philosophy you adhere to, but God is usually attributed some sort of emotion, or at least a will, because without it the belief in God can't serve a societal use.
Say you assume a God without emotions. From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless... So your belief can't be a religion; nor can it be used to control people. There's no physical use to preaching belief in God, and not much of a metaphysical need either since God doesn't care whether you believe in them. "God" becomes a concept like the laws of physics, there's not even much meaning in considering it as a being. There's little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all. So all religions will personify God to some extent.
From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless…
That's not entirely true. You're describing what is effectively Calvinism (also, Hinduism/Buddhism) wherein you are born into a particular state of grace (or absence of it) and you just have to play the hand you're dealt because its "part of the plan". If you are aware of God, that's a kind of blessing in its own right. But its like being aware of a political head of state or a famous historical figure. Knowing they exist can give you insight into how to live your life, but they don't fundamentally know or care that you exist and you don't impact their grandeur in any meaningful way.
There’s little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all.
There's a huge difference, in the same way there's a difference between a Law of Physics and No Law.
Understanding physics allows me to live relatively safely compared to someone who is totally unfamiliar with how conductivity or gravity or momentum works. Understanding spirituality will (presumably) serve the same effect. Spiritual enlightenment affords you a way of avoiding certain hazards, like not holding a big metal rod above you in a storm or leaping into the ocean without a buoy. Ritual and prayer becomes like a car's safety belt and air bags, cushioning you from the psychic trauma of daily life and protecting you from malicious spiritual entities.
There's also a host of spiritual intermediaries in the more esoteric faiths. Catholicism has its saints and angels, while Islam and Judaism has the prophets. Animist religions have spirits of the land and the animals. Pagan faiths have their pantheons and demigods. And they've all got their terrestrial spiritual adversaries - demons, heretics, the acolytes of rival deities, etc.
Why am I praying to ward off evil spirits if there are none? Why am I wearing these vestments and holy symbols to insulate me against "evil" radiation or bad juju? Why am I going on these crusades if I don't think capturing the Holy Land has any benefit for my nation or clan?
You don't have to believe in a "Personal Jesus" to believe in the consequences of a God or a Godly World. Sometimes its just Metaphysical Capture the Flag.
Calvinism still has a notion of divine will, even if there's no divine judgement. Maybe the notion of "will" can be dissociated from the notion of "feeling", but that'd be a debate in itself, I personally tend to think that it can't: Awareness can only indicate what is, not what should be.
As for all the religions with an intermediate between God and men, either they represent God's will... In which case, God does have a will; either they have their own will. And this just displaces the question, because if God has no will but his angels do, then the angels are effectively the Gods: They're the ones whose favour prayers are supposed to get.
Also, when I mention the "societal use" of a religion, what I mean isn't how the religion is useful to the believer, but how it makes the believer useful to the state and/or clergy. My point was that religion with a personalized God who directly judge human actions tend to dominate because they're most useful as tools to influence people's actions.
Maybe we're endowed with Godly emotions.
Why are we satisfied with the idea that God made man intelligent in his image, while being all-knowing, but not this? Isn’t this the same thing? God could have made man with emotions in his image, while being in no way limited to those emotions himself. Why would we limit ourselves to an uncaring God above all that when he could also be all-caring, all-feeling
(Insert misogynistic crack about an all-emotional God being proof God is a woman)
The following are my personal views regarding the divine. In order to better address my views, I'm going to use verbs such as "to be" (is/isn't, are/aren't) and "to have" (has/hasn't, have/haven't). However, it doesn't mean factual statements, so it shouldn't be taken as absolute truth. It's just what I believe, so I may be wrong.
For context, my belief is the result of a syncretic approach that encompasses several religions and belief systems, with some borrowing from scientific concepts. I tend towards Luciferianism, but I'm neither restricted to a specific belief system nor I'm religious nor initiated.
Also, it's very complex and multifaceted. It's very complex and multifaceted to put into simpler words. Throughout this comment, I needed to try and simplify a lot of concepts, should it be much longer in order to fully grasp the complexity of the cosmic and divine principles.
I see the divine as two complementing poles, akin to Yin and Yang: there is a Goddess and a God. Many ancient religions used to believe and worship a dual divine, from Ancient Egypt (e.g. Isis and Osiris), Hebrews (Asherah and Yahweh), indigenous people such as Tupi-Guarani (Jaci and Tupã), among others.
They're both opposite and complementary aspects within the divine. Complemented in balance, they make the Divine, similar to Baphomet: the androgynous, hermaphrodite, fully perfect Divine, the convergence of Lucifer and Lilith, whom are archetypes of the Divine.
Opposing, they get into a kind of a cosmic tug-war yet they seek balance, not exactly a "fight"/"war", as It's complicated to put into words, but it's just the nature of opposites: they attract each other, but they are still opposites trying to be the frame of reference to the other (it's like they're eternally arguing: "Light came from my Darkness!", "no, Darkness came from my Light!"; it's just a matter of each one's perspective, both are right).
This is mirrored within the creation of the cosmos (as per Hermetic Principle of Correspondence "As above, so below"): matter and energy, antimatter and ordinary matter, black-holes and stars/planets/asteroids/nebulae), etc. Fundamentally, it's darkness and light, absence and presence, non-existence and existence. By darkness, it doesn't imply "evil" or "bad": what we see as "good" and "evil" are oversimplifications of a much complex cosmic tapestry. Neither She is necessarily evil nor He is necessarily good. They are both capable of both good and evil (just like there's Yang within the Yin, and there's Yin within the Yang).
However, what we see as "human emotions" are different kinds of energetic signatures. Scientifically, we could point out how neurotransmitters are composed by different chemicals, which are composed by different atoms, which are composed by a different sum of charges (different count of electrons and nuclei). This "energetic signature" could be seen as resonating with equivalent energetic signatures (so a happy song resonates better with a person currently in a happy mood, for example; a grayed sky, devoid of chromatic diversity, resonates better with a person currently in a sad mood, which is experiencing a "lower energy state").
The distinct poles within the Divine resonate with different energetic signatures (with Goddess, imbued with what we'd call as feminine energy, resonating with a much larger spectrum of emotions than God, imbued with what we'd call as masculine energy), which in turn resonate with different "emotions". We, humans, interpret this as "Divine with emotions", but it's just a cosmic principle. As we experiment "emotions", we're experimenting the same cosmic principle, so we are just the micro mirroring the macro, "as above, so below".
Again, it's just my current belief, it's just my way of seeing the Divine. I may be wrong, I don't know.
Whipping out my clover and putting on my best Irish Accent to explain the Holy Trinity
The answer will, of course, vary depending on religion and even depending on sect or school of thought within the same religion, but here's the Sunni Islamic answer as I understand it: God has emotions befitting of His grace and perfection, as opposed to our imperfect human emotions. For example a human might get angry and say or do something that they regret, but God's anger doesn't take away from His wisdom (I think Christianity has something about God regretting flooding the Earth in Noah's time, but islam rejects that sort of thing out of principle). God's mercy doesn't make Him commit injustice, as a human might. Etc etc. We humans don't need a deeper understanding of Allah than this, so Islam doesn't really get into the details of these things, but that's the gist of it. This does contradict your premise that God should be beyond emotion, but there's really no reason for that to be the case. God should obviously be beyond imperfection, but emotions aren't inherently imperfection; only humans' flawed emotions are.
What gets me is in that belief god is essentially is the real person in the real world and he is the head honcho but there are other angels there. heck some things in the bible suggest other gods. definately a we oftentimes. well then our existence is created by him and he has totaly control of it. so from gods perspective our universe is essentially virtual reality. the matrix.
What “things in the bible suggest other gods”?
Mostly genesis but might be a few things in other old testament or something like revelation. If you insist I can go look around but the sections are either the creation area, tower of babel, or the flood. things like we or us. granted its the stuff that basically was just carried over from babylonian things. Its not until abraham that it kinda starts being its own thing.
Human is created in God's image.
Therefore human emotions are similar to God's emotions (this does not tell whether or not God's emotions are superior in some way or other)
The answer depends on your religion, but in the monotheistic traditions of the major religions, the notion of God might be better aligned with “oneness” or “integration” than a personification as we think about them. In that way, God is “everything” (including the contradictions) which would also mean emotions. To say God feels things, it means “God has the capability to feel, because God is all powerful.”
Whether God is impacted by those emotions or their reasoning changes because of them, I think the realities and contradictions are a part of faith. If it all made sense, faith wouldn’t be necessary. You’ll find reasoning similar to this in someone like Kierkegaard.
I’m a UU (raised Catholic, was an atheist for 20 years, followed Buddhism for a few years). My internal conception of God has changed a lot over that time: mostly expanded and includes more grace about this “grand everything” rather than “Old man in a cloud who can be sorta weird and spiteful.” I like that the UU lets me ask questions and develop my own faith.
why should he or she be beyond that?