'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If God exist, is it a Christian God or a Hindu God?
What if God is a process? as oppose to a thing or being!!!!
What if God is but an Idea? - existing only in the imagination of man.</div></div>
Now this is like deciding what's for dinner - having the dinner itself is presupposed, but what is actually going to be on the plate may differ. Your guess is as good as mine.

What it proves is that Paschal wager is a false dichotomy.....there is more than two options.

No. Based on your intelligence displayed so far, this is a deliberate misinterpretation of my words.[/quote]

Thanks.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your words were &quot;If God exist&quot; followed by questions that investigate the nature or form that God takes given the prior acknowledgement of existience. Our discussion here is about the existience of God or in my analogy &quot;dinner&quot;. The secondary discussion of what form that God takes is what you raised and I am not prepared in this thread to go there. This is why I simply park that section of the discussion with &quot;your guess is as good as mine&quot;. </div></div>

Lets not get lost here, I ask the question &quot;if God exist&quot; to show that Paschal wager&quot; was false and lacking, and that to accept his conclusion would be without merit, and an action born and shape in the fear of hell.

Lets flip the question and say &quot;God doesn't exist&quot; but you believe in this nonexistent God you will not gain any rewards in this life or in eternity, and would have lived your life in fear, like a child living its entire life with fear of the bogeyman and hoping for the reward of Santa's gifts - a life without the freedoms of choice, thought, will, action and love.......imprisoned in fear.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
once taken to the logical conclusion, it is plausible that there is a god, but he can not be all three truth claims commonly ascribed to him. </div></div>

If God is Nature, and were are his individual parts......would it not then be possible to correctly ascribe all three claims to God?

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

to be succinct, no.

i mean it really depends on how you are defining god and what truth claims you are espousing for this entity.

i don't see any reason why anyone should say God is Nature.

anyone observing Nature can very quickly tell that nature as a system contains massive systemic evil and suffering, which any omniscient omnipotent AND omnibenevolent deity would be incapable of perpetuating...

so it's only possible to say if there is an entity whom we can call a god, that entity may be all powerful and not completely benevolent, or omnibenevolent to the extent to which it can be but not omnipotent, but no not all three.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to be succinct, no.

i mean it really depends on how you are defining god and what truth claims you are espousing for this entity.

i don't see any reason why anyone should say God is Nature.

anyone observing Nature can very quickly tell that nature as a system contains massive systemic evil and suffering, which any omniscient omnipotent AND omnibenevolent deity would be incapable of perpetuating...

so it's only possible to say if there is an entity whom we can call a god, that entity may be all powerful and not completely benevolent, or omnibenevolent to the extent to which it can be but not omnipotent, but no not all three. </div></div>

Where is the evil in nature?

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to be succinct, no.

i mean it really depends on how you are defining god and what truth claims you are espousing for this entity.

i don't see any reason why anyone should say God is Nature.

anyone observing Nature can very quickly tell that nature as a system contains massive systemic evil and suffering, which any omniscient omnipotent AND omnibenevolent deity would be incapable of perpetuating...

so it's only possible to say if there is an entity whom we can call a god, that entity may be all powerful and not completely benevolent, or omnibenevolent to the extent to which it can be but not omnipotent, but no not all three. </div></div>

Where is the evil in nature? </div></div>

have you ever observed that life must kill life in order to sustain itself?

this is probably the basis of about 90% of all mythologies, is reconciling that fact.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where is the evil in nature?

have you ever observed that life must kill life in order to sustain itself?</div></div>

Killing is evil only because, you think it is the end.....what if it is a new beginning?
If Life is like energy can it be destroyed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is probably the basis of about 90% of all mythologies, is reconciling that fact. </div></div>
It appears evil on the individual level. Nature does three things - create preserve and destroy(transform). Can one have growth without transformation....Change is necessary for real Growth

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

any consciousness attached to that energy is of course destroyed.

i reject any notion that states violent, horrendous suffering is <span style="font-style: italic">necessary</span> for real growth. real growth may occur because of it, but that is actually in spite of the horrendous suffering. anything can be a catalyst for real growth, even chopping wood. I don't see grizzly bears or certain species of wasps exhibiting real growth when they cause untold suffering, nor do the creatures who perish even have an opportunity to exhibit any growth since they are a meal, or in the case of the species of wasp I have in mind, a food source over a long period of time as their insides are eaten out.

of course all beings require sustenance which necessitates the destruction of others, and in general wisdom dictates that this kind of natural evil is a necessary and vital part of the biological system- hunter prey relationships etc. but there is so much variation, and so much agony and suffering, as to cause one to stop and be forced to consider its nature and origin. we can shrug and say oh well so it go, the lion does not &quot;murder&quot; the antelope according to our standards however, what we are analyzing here is the nature of that process by which all life is destroyed, and if there is any kind of sentience ascribed to that process of nature- which you have termed &quot;God&quot;. If that is the case that there is indeed sentience in nature, if nature is God, then there is a problem on both the systemic level and micro, individual level.

few creatures go to their death without a struggle, so that should tell you something.

You can say that killing appears evil on the individual level but there it is. It is evil on the individual level, and since we nor any other creature we know of, do not retain consciousness in our next transformed state nor is it painless or easy to be transformed throughout the system, at a certain point all anyone has is their own individual level. many creatures are 'transformed' with no other knowledge but that of the self.

there is the problem and why mythologies all address this realization at their core. any spiritual system you can name must grapple with this problem.

do you find it curious that the first sin according to the judeaochristians was that of eating fruit...and that by eating that fruit, knowledge could be gained of good and evil...

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">any consciousness attached to that energy is of course destroyed.</div></div>

Are you sure of this?
Their are some who speculate that all consciousness is ONE.....The consumed and the consumer are the same.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i reject any notion that states violent, horrendous suffering is <span style="font-style: italic">necessary</span> for real growth. real growth may occur because of it, but that is actually in spite of the horrendous suffering. anything can be a catalyst for real growth, even chopping wood. I don't see grizzly bears or certain species of wasps exhibiting real growth when they cause untold suffering, nor do the creatures who perish even have an opportunity to exhibit any growth since they are a meal, or in the case of the species of wasp I have in mind, a food source over a long period of time as their insides are eaten out.</div></div>

No no it is not necessarily the only way, but the way most common for us to observe. Can you truly appreciate pleasure and comfort with pain and discomfort?

Yes but the creature doing the consuming is possible experiencing great pleasure, yes it is and looks horrible what is happening to the creature who is the meal, but that is common thruoght out nature if not universal.
Most individual who it is claimed have died (clincally) and been resuscitated say that the experience was incredible pleasurable

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">of course all beings require sustenance which necessitates the destruction of others, and in general wisdom dictates that this kind of natural evil is a necessary and vital part of the biological system- hunter prey relationships etc. but there is so much variation, and so much agony and suffering, as to cause one to stop and be forced to consider its nature and origin. we can shrug and say oh well so it go, the lion does not &quot;murder&quot; the antelope according to our standards however, what we are analyzing here is the nature of that process by which all life is destroyed, and if there is any kind of sentience ascribed to that process of nature- which you have termed &quot;God&quot;. If that is the case that there is indeed sentience in nature, if nature is God, then there is a problem on both the systemic level and micro, individual level.</div></div>

And it is thru that self same system thru which lifes creates life - if the lion does not eat he dies.
It has worked for millions of yrs, yet it is not perfect as it continues to change - ever in a state of flux.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">few creatures go to their death without a struggle, so that should tell you something.

You can say that killing appears evil on the individual level but there it is. It is evil on the individual level, and since we nor any other creature we know of, do not retain consciousness in our next transformed state nor is it painless or easy to be transformed throughout the system, at a certain point all anyone has is their own individual level. many creatures are 'transformed' with no other knowledge but that of the self. </div></div>

When you destroy or discard say your shirt do you consider it an evil act? I guess not and why is that? ...........Could it be that to nature, having so many forms of existence, life maybe so common place to nature that it considers life the way you consider life-less objects. We for the most part are only cognizant of two forms of existence THE LIVING and THE DEAD....and imagine the UNDEAD.....What if natures knows many more forms of existence




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is the problem and why mythologies all address this realization at their core. any spiritual system you can name must grapple with this problem.

do you find it curious that the first sin according to the judeaochristians was that of eating fruit...and that by eating that fruit, knowledge could be gained of good and evil... </div></div>

Yes.... it goes to show that there is very little you can do that does not end up killing or maiming some creatures. Saying goes God took a rib from Adam to make Eve.

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

frankster, first let me say i always enjoy our conversations here.

now, what I would like to ask you is to consider for a moment the scale, the vastness, the unfathomable amount of suffering, not just in the various animal kingdoms but in our own.

this is the problem I generally have with most religions and their ambassadors, especially works like the Shack.

when we say that suffering is for learning, I understand that quite well, because my own spiritual tradition has as one of its methods a grueling, physical regimen, and we must acknowledge the role of the renunciate and ascetic. these are indeed methods by which humanity can grapple with and understand and internalize the ineffable.

but there is so much waste, IF that is the reason for suffering.

Ask any number of people who went through rwanda, for example, if they would not rather have known their regular pleasures and joys without having to see their children's brains dashed out, or arms chopped off, or wives raped in the streets and fed to dogs.

My wager would be on yes, they could definitely appreciate and find meaning to their lives without that.

There may be those who speculate that all consciousness is one, but on what basis is their speculation? Nothing observable or testable or repeatable shows this. Only myth, the public dream, and dream the personal myth.

so too would anyone drugged up find their slaughter pleasurable, that does not make the killing ethical or moral. that the brain may fire off various chemicals to assuage the pain, why is there the pain in the first place and the need for that, if there is a designer or conscious entity directing this. I would continue to submit there is no consciousness to natures whims.

regarding the discarding of the shirt there is little to consider- it is not sentient. Clearly, nature does not take into consideration sentience, so in that I agree with you except to draw the line to say that nature actually does not consider. it just is a system of interlocking evolved forces and this is how it is.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">frankster, first let me say i always enjoy our conversations here.</div></div>

So do I

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">now, what I would like to ask you is to consider for a moment the scale, the vastness, the unfathomable amount of suffering, not just in the various animal kingdoms but in our own.</div></div>

It is true the amount of suffering is unfathomable, nor do I wish for anything to suffer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is the problem I generally have with most religions and their ambassadors, especially works like the Shack.</div></div>

Never read it what does it have to say about God, pain and suffering?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when we say that suffering is for learning, I understand that quite well, because my own spiritual tradition has as one of its methods a grueling, physical regimen, and we must acknowledge the role of the renunciate and ascetic. these are indeed methods by which humanity can grapple with and understand and internalize the ineffable.</div></div>

How much of pain and suffering is a matter of cultural perspective?



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but there is so much waste, IF that is the reason for suffering.</div></div>

Nature tends to be lavish and abundant with whatever it does.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ask any number of people who went through rwanda, for example, if they would not rather have known their regular pleasures and joys without having to see their children's brains dashed out, or arms chopped off, or wives raped in the streets and fed to dogs.</div></div>

Such horrors are indeed regretable, and as human beings we should do as much as is possible to stop them from recurring......and we will only achieve this through understanding Nature.
The horrors we speak of occurs on every level of life all the time....in nearly every action you take you unintentional kill many forms of life.

It would appear that in order to feel pleasure we must be expose to pain.....pain and pleasure exist on the same continuum. You cannot have one without the other. Pain and suffering is often a way for us to know that something is wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My wager would be on yes, they could definitely appreciate and find meaning to their lives without that.</div></div>

And I would agree.
Life could not exist without pain and pleasure....they are primal drives - and without life there is no meaning or appreciation

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There may be those who speculate that all consciousness is one, but on what basis is their speculation? Nothing observable or testable or repeatable shows this. Only myth, the public dream, and dream the personal myth.</div></div>

Nearly all major religion seems to point to this being the case, that all life or consciousness is One experiencing itself subjectively - life is a (Holographic) dream.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7nVnWppcimY"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7nVnWppcimY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so too would anyone drugged up find their slaughter pleasurable, that does not make the killing ethical or moral. that the brain may fire off various chemicals to assuage the pain, why is there the pain in the first place and the need for that, if there is a designer or conscious entity directing this. I would continue to submit there is no consciousness to natures whims.</div></div>

You feel pain via chemical reactions...pain is there to protect life and pleasure is there so that life may thrive.
Ethics and Morals change depending on Time place and culture.....Nature is not so local temporal or transient.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">regarding the discarding of the shirt there is little to consider- it is not sentient. Clearly, nature does not take into consideration sentience, so in that I agree with you except to draw the line to say that nature actually does not consider. it just is a system of interlocking evolved forces and this is how it is. </div></div>

How can Nature not consider or be sentient? You are a part of nature and you have these faculties - hence Nature must also posses them....
Is the sum of the parts greater than the whole?
Is any part greater than the whole?
Yes Nature is a system of forces and faculties....Nature is Personal Impersonal and Transpersonal - individually and altogather.

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Lets not get lost here, I ask the question &quot;if God exist&quot; to show that Paschal wager&quot; was false and lacking, and that to accept his conclusion would be without merit, and an action born and shape in the fear of hell.

Lets flip the question and say &quot;God doesn't exist&quot; but you believe in this nonexistent God you will not gain any rewards in this life or in eternity, and would have lived your life in fear, like a child living its entire life with fear of the bogeyman and hoping for the reward of Santa's gifts - a life without the freedoms of choice, thought, will, action and love.......imprisoned in fear. </div></div>

Choosing to believe is not necessarily a fear response, and i don't see how you automatically and singly translate such belief into &quot;a life without the freedoms of choice, thought, will, action and love&quot;. I must only think that this is an unfortunate impression you have retained from some misguided example of faith. for that i am saddened.

[franksterr]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Choosing to believe is not necessarily a fear response, and i don't see how you automatically and singly translate such belief into &quot;a life without the freedoms of choice, thought, will, action and love&quot;. I must only think that this is an unfortunate impression you have retained from some misguided example of faith. for that i am saddened. </div></div>

Choosing to believe may not necessarily be a fear response but it is the over riding criteria that you use as a support for your belief in God based on Pascal scenario.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given that the most severe consequence comes from 1-b, and the most profitable consequence comes from 1-a, then logically one must choose to accept (1) that God exists, and belief in that God (a) is the best choice even without evidence since it means to choose the best of the possible outcomes.</div></div>

1-b is pure fear of hell and it is your first choice, and belief in God is a rouse used to avoid hell.

You have no freedom only two options to obey God and receive salvation or to disobey God and suffer damnation.

FREEDOM is define as -
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
2. exemption from <span style="font-weight: bold">external control</span>, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action <span style="font-weight: bold">without restraint</span>.

God becomes an external control and restraining influence, hence the reason I say you are not free if you believe in such a God

I know what Faith is but I have found that most Westernize Christian mistake Blind Faith for real Faith......Blind Faith imprison your Mind Soul and Spirit.

[quodlibet]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Choosing to believe is not necessarily a fear response, and i don't see how you automatically and singly translate such belief into &quot;a life without the freedoms of choice, thought, will, action and love&quot;. I must only think that this is an unfortunate impression you have retained from some misguided example of faith. for that i am saddened. </div></div>

Choosing to believe may not necessarily be a fear response but it is the over riding criteria that you use as a support for your belief in God based on Pascal scenario.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given that the most severe consequence comes from 1-b, and the most profitable consequence comes from 1-a, then logically one must choose to accept (1) that God exists, and belief in that God (a) is the best choice even without evidence since it means to choose the best of the possible outcomes.</div></div>

1-b is pure fear of hell and it is your first choice, and belief in God is a rouse used to avoid hell.

You have no freedom only two options to obey God and receive salvation or to disobey God and suffer damnation.

FREEDOM is define as -
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
2. exemption from <span style="font-weight: bold">external control</span>, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action <span style="font-weight: bold">without restraint</span>.

God becomes an external control and restraining influence, hence the reason I say you are not free if you believe in such a God

I know what Faith is but I have found that most Westernize Christian mistake Blind Faith for real Faith......Blind Faith imprison your Mind Soul and Spirit. </div></div>

The use of a dictionary is an interesting choice in this discussion. What you have done, is use an authority to explain and define your words. Did you feel constrained by the language? Of course not. You had faith that your words would be understood by your audience. Did that feel restrictive? I dont think so.

The language you use is part of how you express yourself. Our discussion shows that you enjoy this interaction. Is this forum or the means to communicate in it offensive because you are restrained to using a keyboard and screen?

God forbid.

[johnnycakes]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

Re; The existence of God

&quot;That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.&quot;

[rudemonk]

Re: 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quodlibet</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Pascal the mathematician thought of it this way. There are two possibilities -

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

and two belief positions

a. Belief in God
b. Non-belief in God

this leads to 4 outcomes

1-a - God exists and I believe
1-b - God exists and I do not believe
2-a - God does not exist and I believe
2-b - God does not exist and I do not believe

And subsequent implicit consequence from the 4 outcomes

1-a - Possibility of redemption; no down side
1-b - Possibility of damnation; all down side
2-a - False belief; wasted time &amp; energy
2-b - No redemption; no wasted time &amp; energy
</div></div>

actually, there are more than the first two <span style="font-style: italic">probabilities</span>...if you think about it it should become clear.