If I may, I think everyone should take the time to gain and understanding and knowledge of the original formation of religion...
Your objections to religion seem to be very Christian-centric. The history of Christianity is not like the history of Hinduism.
You simply don't want people to act on faith. Faith is bad, scientific method is good. But that's not for you or for anyone else to decide.
Religious faith is more than just blindly following dogma, it is a feeling and thus can only be understood through experience. Find as many dictionary definitions of 'love', yet you won't get close to understanding it unless you've felt it. That is fact.
People judge each other using their own moral standards regardless of religion. You have demonstrated this by claiming people who follow religion are blind and dumb. For you, truth is what happens to agree with your views. That's not the truth most people, religious or otherwise, are looking for.
My Only view on God relates to the fact that if i created a world in which people live i would not expect them to worship me wholeheartedly without proof of my existence, surely even if this appears as an act of giving it is ultimately selfish. If i were a god i would merely desire the people to lead their lives for the benefit of society in whatever way possible.
God did not create out of justice, since we did not exist and therefore had no rights. God did not create out of boredom, because he lacks in nothing.
So the only thing that seems to be left, is that which requires no contigency: love. To love, for God, is to desire the good of another (rather than himself). Thus God created the universe out of nothing, which conversly means: out of Love.
This is a contradiction. If there was only god, then why would there be any love? You can't love something that does not exist. It would be like me loving a child in which I do not have or hasn't been created. That doesn't make any sense. The love could only be after the fact, but you are saying love was his motivation, motivation doesn't come after the act, it comes before it. So what you have proposed here does not answer anything.
Here is another way to look at it. How long have humans be around? How long has the universe existed? These don't match. If his motivation was to create us, then why did he wait billions of years to do it? Seems a little delayed doesn't it?
I want to get to the store, but first I think I'll go on a hike. I really need to get some food, but instead I'm going to go take a nap. Doesn't make any sense if your motivation is for one purpose, love, that you would prolong it for so long.
Your argument doesn't hold up to any of the logic.
Why is it men of faith dont realise that those who oppose the notion of a benevolent god have not considered the arguments? I will ask you...why do you think god created us ?
God creating out of Love, I suppose is a bit of a mystery to any logician, but I would never propose that any mystery could defy logic. I think however, if we understand it in terms of the eternal, it can be non-contradictorary. Insofar as God does not exist in a prior-ness to our existence nor does he exist in a post-ness to our existence, since he is present at all times and places.
Implying that God knows who we are outside of time, thus love us as a perfect thought. If you consider Plato's world of forms, where there are perfect ideas that have yet to be materialized in the universe (say, neo-platonism) I think it can be reconciled.
So what you are saying here is that god knew prior to creating? God knew about everything before god did everything? If god is also everywhere at all times then basically we would be inside of god. No where could there be a place that was absent or else there would be a place in which god would not be. See any contradiction here? So which is it? God is in all places and times or there are places in which god is not? Is god in the bowels of pigs? Is god also fecal matter? If you start saying no to this, then god can't be in all places. If god is not in all places it would also mean god could not be in all times as well. If you move the place where god wasn't to a new location that would constitute time change and also the movement of where god would be displaced. Therefore he couldn't exist in all times in all places.
God can have thoughts but only if god is subject to time. You can't have thoughts in a timeless place. I know that doesn't directly address your perfect thought but it does conflict with having a perfect thought. Although I do not disagree with the ability to have a perfect thought, it is the process by which you arrive at a perfect thought that is imperfect. Are you implying that all god's thoughts are perfect? Or that only one of god's thoughts were perfect? If god only has one thought, and that thought was perfect then alright, but were there more than one? This is the spot where your perfect thought starts to crumble away.
Can you please go easy on me, there are far to many questions being dumped on me. Keep in mind that there is an entire book dedicated to answering these questions that you are asking (Summa Theologica).
What I'm saying is merely that you cannot attatch a-priori knowledge or a-posteriori knowledge to God, because both imply time and thus finitude.
Second, you are looking at God's existence as pure extension which is contrary to what Aquinas means by "presence." The artist is present in the painting insofar as what was in his mind was impressed upon it. Likewise God is present in all of creation insofar as it is his art work.
Second of all, creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with God (unless we merely mean what God is not). Human beings have an instrinsic relationship with God, which implies that all of creation exists "within God" as you stated above. This is hardly a contradiction, because it is rather consistent with the fact that God is infinite. IF God is limitless, we'd be fools to think we can escape his presence. Our very existence is a participation in his very Being.
Lastly, in discussing "Time" and metaphysics, I'd add that outside of time is not something that specifically implies "static" state. Rather, it is analagously described as an "eternal moment." I realize this is hardly helpful, but it certainly offers a different perspective than you might presuppose.
Either way, this is all a digression from my original point, which was in reference to a question about "worship"
I apolo for so many questions. It helps to put things into perspective to make sure nothing is left out or assumed. I am familar with Summa Theologica and have studied it. I can't say that I am impressed. Most of the answers are flat and leave far too much assumed. He expected some of these responses to be forthright knowledge and taken to be accepted concepts, which they are not. You can't approach this work from a non-believer's point of view because it doesn't address any of the issues of it.
Which is the same argument I make for any thing that is said about or of god in the first place. For example, believers of god assume that god created the universe but god could be trying to take credit for creating the universe or perhaps under the impression that he created it but he really didn't. A sort of dumb founded knowledge.
Then it should not be called presence. I am familiar with what he was trying to imply. He means that god has the potential to be in all places but actually adheres to not do so for what ever purpose. It is that ability to have that it would be considered all encompassing. I do however disagree that the finger print is evident in the painting of the universe. I do not see any presence of a god anywhere in the universe.
It would be like secretly placing a canvas under the leaky faucet of a painter. The water going down the drain absorbs some of the paint when the painter washes out his brushes. That water then leaks out of the pipe and onto the canvas. Later, I remove it and say, "Wow what beautiful creation you have made here." No, that would not be the work of art by the painter, instead it would belong to me who placed the canvas there but obviously I was not involved in the application of any of the paint either, chaos was. This is my impression of the universe.
Oh a lot of contradictions here. You can't on one hand say god is infinite then also make the statement that creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with god. You can't have both an infinity with a finite surrounding, it doesn't work. It's why quantum physicists are annoyed with general relativity.
Well an "eternal moment" would have to cover the entire moment then. So the thought would take up the entire moment from beginning to end which would mean all encompassing in an eternity. Meaning you could only have one thought because you couldn't get to the next until the first thought finished. But the first thought can not finish because it covers the entire eternal moment.
You could have more than one at a time but that goes back to causing the infinite thought before thought problem. Doesn't work. It would be like holding out your hand to catch a ball that you didn't know and knew would be thrown at you prior to it being created. Or looking at every single frame of every single movie ever created all at the exact same time.
Oh you mean that Christians stole sun worship from the Egyptians? But instead of actually calling it sun worship they just called it god to circumvent all the problems with what the Egyptians were facing?
For the same reason you abandon the idea of Santa Claus -- its childish, and for anyone to continue believing in such nonsense is deliberately deluding themselves. This doesnt mean you have to give up the concept of god, it just means its time to grow up and stop thinking life is like a fairytale.
I would like to ask again why did god create us? not goodness, humanity, what purpose do we serve? No references please just in your own words, please.
Yes; as a form religion is a part of the childhood of mankind just as it is a part of every childhood...Think of it, how impossible it is to escape notions of fate, or magic, or luck...We wish, and Wish was once a God... What is our purpose??? It is the same with our new religion of science, to have our way, to have power, to avoid the pitiful little lives we all suffer regardless...Once mankind tied into the power of nature and God... Now we seek power over nature, and even the best of us at one time or another has offered a bribe to God to let the chips fall our way...It is in our nature, and as much as we should learn religion to understand ourselves, we should free ourselves from its dominance over our thoughts...
He did not need to but he did...Now either he wanted to or not ? What did he create us for, what purpose do we serve god. I would like an answer please.
God created everything so that everything could know God. God didn't need anything. I believe our purpose, what we are created for, is to come to a knowledge of God and His love. And it's hard for me to imagine someone coming to this knowledge and wanting to do anything but reciprocate that love.
So you are saying god created us for our good not his? he had no personal gain from this creation? are you sure?
that is exactly what I'm saying. That is the definition of love