Why Would God Care?

It is if God decrees that you avoid a behavior. Which he does, quite frequently. As numerous as I'm sure the reasons are for not making unto thee any graven image*, this is irrelevant. If you have another reason for doing something, more power to you. But according to religion, it doesn't matter to God if you do or not. You have to obey because he said so.Either way, your attempts at distraction have passed their sell-by date. If you want to further debate whether or not religion involves suiting your behavior to God, take it to another thread.---
* - This is sarcasm, just fyi. Wouldn't want you to get all confused again.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This presupposes God caring. If he doesn't, what does it matter to him if we hurt ourselves?

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

A month down the road, and I still don't see why the believers all had such trouble with this topic. That is indeed what the thread's concerned with... Doesn't really answer the question at all. Heart, hands, why would he care either way? Aren't we made in God's image?Of course, I guess it's possible that there's a God out there that has a thought process that humans just can't possibly understand. In which case, his desires are inscrutable, and are therefore irrelevant; there's no way to tell what he wants.Or, for that matter, why he would care, or even if he does.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

That assurance is especially odd, when you take into account that I don't actually think that.I question why God would care at all about such things, when he has the whole universe to attend to. This is, in fact, the opposite of saying that such things are more important than something else. There's nothing ambiguous about asking why he would care. It's a very straightforward question. Why? Poop emerges from my butt. I don't care about it once it's flushed. It could mean we look like him, in which case it's not really relevant. Or it could mean we think like him, in which case, we can happily assign human motives to him. Nope. But if we can understand what he wants, then we can ask why he wants it, and... oh, look at that. We're going around in circles. And in the meantime, the question goes unanswered. We can also look back in the thread, to where this already came up. When I draw a picture, I don't really care about the ink's motivation for soaking into the paper; only that it does so. And if the drawing turns out messed up, screw it, I toss it and start again. Great. But we can certainly wonder at the rest. Such as, say, off the top of my head, "Why would he care?"

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Sure. If I leave it in my apartment, it will bring disease that can hurt me.God, however, is supposed to be omnipotent. Nothing we can conceivably do can hurt him. How do you figure? The point at which this is said is the point where it doesn't affect me.You seem to be implying that we affect God. But you're not saying how, which makes it another iteration of "God cares because God cares."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

No. But it sure drastically reduces the number of sensible reasons for caring. If nothing can hurt you, then away go all the reasons to care about the possibility of being hurt. Okay. How do we affect God? So maybe he cares about things. But the ability to care doesn't explain why he'd care about us. Yes, the only way to discuss a fictional character is to work from a fictional frame of reference.That being said, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this fictional God differs from the fictional God. People keep insisting that it is different, but nobody explains why. More like, "it's safe to assume God doesn't care, because after 153 posts over the course of nearly a month, nobody has yet been able to produce a solid reason why he would."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

If you can think of a sensible reason why something that can't be hurt should care about the possibility of something hurting him, I'm all ears. Okay. So God might care about us. So, now that we've established that, what would the next logical question be? Hm, tip of my tongue, I know it's there, gimme a minute...Oh! Right! Why would God care about us?Ta da! Well, first you say I'm dealing with a fictional God. Now you say I'm not.These semantic games are much more fun than addressing a simple question, aren't they? But not without reason.Again... haven't said God isn't capable of caring. Haven't said God doesn't care about anything. I have only asked why he would care about us. Yeah, I didn't say "over 153 posts, nobody's convinced me of it. I said there was no solid reason given yet.So far we've got:God wouldn't care (Jar, post 7), If we assume God cares, then it makes sense that God cares (Anastasia, post 8), God doesn't care (Brian, post 9), God's capable of caring - no reason given why he would (Jazzns, post 10), Same as post 10 (Creavolution, post 11), God cares because we really are the most important thing in the universe - no reason given why that would be the case (Creavolution, post 15), God doesn't care (you, post 19), God cares because we're not important (Anastasia, post 20), God cares because I don't like the idea of him not caring (Phat, post 21), God cares because the alternative is the horrific, selfish act of recycling (Phat, post 25), God cares because humankind has an undefinable destiny (Phat, post 26), God cares because we are selfish by nature? (Phat, post 30), God cares because Jimmy affects other people - no reason given why God would care about those other people (Phat, post 34), God still has a magnificent destiny for us! Honest! (Phat, post 35), God cares because he wants to talk to us - no reason given why he would want to talk to us (Phat, post 40), God cares because we are the most blindingly important thing in the universe - no reason given why this would be the case (ICANT, post 45), God cares because you HAVE to talk to him - no reason given why this would be the case (Phat, post 46), Well you're just making up a new God now, God DOES care! - no reason given why this is the case - God still wants you to talk to him - still no reason why this is the case (Phat, post 51) Well, I know what you're really asking, and it's not "why does God care?" (purpledawn, post 52), God doesn't care (Catholic Scientist, post 57), You know, "Sin" is also the name of a Nine Inch Nails song (Phat, post 60), Wow, CS has a crapload of posts where he goes on about how sure God "cares", but you can't really call it "caring", per se... they start in post 67, and there's no way in fuck I'm listing them all... and purpledawn has a crapload about the important thing in all this is masturbation... those start in post 70...In fact, from this point on, the thread kind of becomes a nightmare of evasion and semantic wrangling. Besides, I'm at work, and can't do this all day. Maybe I'll finish summing up later. But either way, if I've missed some solid reason in all that, or later on in the thread, feel free to point it out to me.The closest I've seen to an actual reason so far is the artist metaphor, and I addressed that earlier today. If an artist fucks up a picture, they don't get all pissy about how the picture fucked up. They correct their own actions.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I agree. But you're extending the sensible interest in the well-being of the whole creation (the universe) to a specific interest in the well-being of a tiny, tiny, tiny part of it. (Us.) It doesn't follow. Nothing we do affects the whole of the creation. When put into prespective next to the whole of the creation, we are so small a piece as to be irrelevant to the working of the whole.Unless someone can explain a relevance, in which case I'm all ears.And of course, this line of reasoning continues to ignore the number of things we create each day, such as a hearty shit, about which we don't care. Is the burden on me to explain why I don't wrap my daily dump in swaddling clothes and sing it lullabies?Edited by Dan Carroll, : Because every post deserves a good poop

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Okay. Then the question of what God wants is irrelevant. We have no way of understanding it, either way. No. That would require an agreement to the idea that God does care about humans, which does not automatically follow from the possibility that God cares about humans.The questioning of that agreement, of course, would lead us back to "why would God care?" You are, of course, presupposing that God cares about either one. Okay. What are those fictional properties? Not about everything. If I don't know why gravity is, then "why" is a perfectly sensible question. Repeating "Gravity" won't help any.And, of course, if I do understand what gravity is, but am asking why you say a rock would fall with no attracting mass handy for it to fall to, asking "why" becomes even more sensible. "Gravity" is not just a catch-all reason for motion in all circumstances, nor is "sentient beings care" a reason why a sentient being would care about something specific. Well gosh, thanks for clearing that up. Could have sworn I was, though.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Not exactly. I said that if we can't tell, then the whole subject of God's desires is moot. We might. Doesn't imply that we do. And given the lower scale on which we exist, it's very hard to stretch imagination to the point where we could. See, this is where you're skipping from "could" to "does". Just because he could care doesn't mean that suggesting that there's no reason he would violates some law of nature. Sure, I think it's at least reasonable assume that he is capable of doing so. What one person cares about says nothing about what another person cares about. Any number of people have died in Iraq, for instance, that many people in America don't care about. But their families in Iraq sure did.So how could we possibly say that what we care about has any bearing on what an unknowable being of a cosmically higher order would care about? We're back to asking whether you weep for the mold in your shower when you spritz it.Does it not strike you as slightly egotistical to think that The Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator Of The Universe would have the same concerns we do, when the people on this planet don't even have a common standard of caring? At this point, the artist metaphor requires equivocation between blame and caring, and... I guess an outside agency "damaging" it?Guess it's a shittier metaphor than I initially thought.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Yeah, the metaphor gets shittier all the time. This thread has certainly made that clear.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

In what way does it follow that we can hurt or affect him? It does if you're saying that "you can conclude that others will care about things in a similar way." People telling me what my question really is instead of answering my question just never gets old. When instructing me on how to determine if God cares, you said, "for a first approximation, you can conclude that others will care about things in a similar way." Given the above two points, I'm including this for chuckles. And I've agreed with this, many times. So... what, your answer is "I don't know if he cares or not?"Fine. What are you arguing for, then? You know it wasn't my metaphor, right? I don't feel a tremendous need to squirm in its defense. Because the metaphor falls apart for reasons that cause you to say, "AHA, but that's blame, not caring!"Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

1) I'll make you a deal: start using "affect" and "effect" properly, and I'll tone down the arrogance. I'm not trying to be a dick on this point, it's just a quirk that drives me nuts.2) Humans are equal to other humans, but not equal to God. Therefore, postulating that God would care about our equals because we do doesn't work.3) As I already stated... humans with similar thought processes care about different things from one another. So it doesn't work to say that because God has a similar thought process, he must care about the same things as us. And it's not enough to make an assumption. Which means we have no basis to say God cares. I have never found the two to be mutually exclusive. 1) If the medium in which the art is made is responsible for the outcome of the piece, then the artist is irrelevant. He's not an artist, he's more comparable to a paint manufacturer; the piece itself is the artist. And a paint manufacturer doesn't have the vested interest in the piece that the artist does.2) When the metaphor has to be extended to "the artist cares about his piece, and wants the paint to behave so it comes out right, so he gives the paint a book of rules, and tells it to behave, and..."...shit, maybe "artist" isn't a properly encompassing metaphor? If nothing else, an artist that finds that his medium isn't working right for him says, "fuck it, start over, maybe with another tool."Now as it happens, I have a busy day at work today. I'm taking the next two days off, so I have to haul ass today to get ahead. So if I don't respond until Monday, there you go.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

So, in other words, it doesn't automatically follow that the deity's interest extends to us.Even if we assume that bringing the universe into being was a distinct act of caring, not akin to taking a cosmic shit, (which isn't a assumption one can reasonably make,) what is the reason to assume that the interest extended past the act of creation, and into a day-to-day maintenance? Apathy is an absence of caring. Unless absolute and total caring about everything is included in the premise, which it's not, as seen above, then apathy is absolutely included in the premise. Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. God is ten feet tall, while we are a measly six, and therefore we are unimportant. Thank you for listening.Physical size has nothing to do with it. God is meant to be omniscient and omnipotent. Unlimited wisdom and power would put this being farther up in terms of importance, relative to us, than we are above the mold in our showers, just by definition of what he is. Our relative unimportance is established from the get-go. That was, as I recall, part of the premise. There are many things about which we are aware, and which we have an ability to affect, about which we don't care. Do you go out of your way to step on anthills?Same caveats as to Ringo, off work the next couple days, etc. etc.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Time enough for a quick one. The feelings you're extrapolating are for our equals. If God has equals, we can extrapolate his feelings towards those equals. Not towards us, his inferiors. God's method of correction is, according to major religions, to tell us what to do, threaten us with punishment if we don't do it, reward us if we do, and let us make our choice. If an artist is correcting flaws in their design, they just go ahead and correct them.If God's interest was as simple as correcting faults, one would think he'd just go ahead and do so. Since his actions are more complicated than that, there's presumably a reason beyond that of an artist correcting a painting. So the artist metaphor falls apart; it doesn't cover the actions in question. Except for all those people who follow a book God handed down to correct their behavior, sure.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert