Another "God" question

@mark noble,

mark noble;174660 wrote:

Hi Dr Seuss,
!) Are you saying that you think God did not know the resulting consequences from creating mankind and satan? He is, after all, accredited with being the "Alpha and Omega" - At both the beginning and the end. If so, you would think that with the gift of hindsight He has seen what will be before it IS?
2) I read the bible all the time and I wonder why you think that God would not create something that would fail Him?
3) I can only slit my throat (can't we make this one less gory - like jump into a volcano, maybe)? Hence - I can only jump into a volcano at the appointed time predestined me by God - Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." This text tells us that God knows every event before it occurs, EVERY event; And is therefore ommniscient to the hilt (past and future). Revelation provides us with the capacity to understand this, alone.

No act can take place that God has not destined to do so. That throws free-will out the proverbial window - For whatever action I take (everything else too) I/It MUST take, or I am overpowering the will of God, therefore, submitting God to my will and, ultimately, gaining power over God, becoming God and creating a paradox of God's inexistence - Nullifying the whole process - returning home to wales, only to find - I've been burgled and all my shortbread has been stolen.

I understand the "Faith/Works" principle - My point was that Faith would not apply if God were proven to Be - Works wouldn't matter then, so I didn't mention them.
And if faith (works too - but, not the point of this sentence) is to be maintained - God would NOT provide convincing miracles, thus removing the requirement of said faith, again nullifying God's own ideals...But that's another story.

Nobody in the history of mankind has anything other than an illusory definition for the spirit, soul. we can't even seperate the mind from biological functioning. Can you define it? There's a good, recent, thread on it by my brother in arms "Mark Gamson". Take a peek, time permitting.

Thank you Dr Seuss, Yet again, an inspiring and welcome conversation. Have a magnificent everything, always.
Mark...

1) We have already seen that he knows what will happen because he has that capacity to predict the future with perfect accuracy. But how could you think he knew before he even created them what was going to happen? Can you predict that which you have not created yet to have some sort of shortcoming?

Again the Bible does not give much detail as to what you are asking. It does not clarify some things because it does say that some things are far beyond our human capacity to understand.

2) Where did I say that? He did make a creation that did fail him big time. Yet it doesn't take away that some of his creation try with our limited capacities and imperfections to serve him and not the devil. Which proved that the devil was wrong in saying that if he came and gave us a hard time we would leave God.

3) if you were to jump in the volcano its because you chose to. Just like you are choosing to ask me all these questions. That scripture you sited is accurate. That melody by David is a melody to God saying in other words that he knows him )David) better than himself. If you look at the following verse # 17 you will find him saying to god how precise his thoughts are. He is thanking god for he being wonderfully made. And that he even sees that which cant be seen by us humans.

God knows what will happen tomorrow because he knows us better than we know ourselves since he made us. He knows how we will react and act now and in the future. But you are in control of your life, there is no destiny.

Perhaps you fail to see whats in front of you because you are looking for something else and thus fail to see what you have in front of you.

1 Reply

@Dr Seuss,

Hi Dr Seuss,
I hope we can return to this after the forum moves. You do know about this, I hope. It is tonight?
Have a great everything, sir.
See you soon.
Mark...

0 Replies

@Neil D,

Neil;175041 wrote:

I totally agree. Society has certain criteria for which delusions are acceptable, and which will label a person as mentally ill.

One of my favorites are those certain religious persons who talk in tongues. It is supposed to be some divine language, but its obviously gibberish. It doesnt even come close to resembling a language in my opinion.

Or when im channel surfing and i come across this guy who is blowing on people, and they fall to the ground and flop around like a fish out of water. Its laughable, and probably rehearsed(much money to be made). But im sure the majority in the crowd believe it to be genuine.

Religion gets the "anything goes" card. Mentally retarded/delusional behavior is acceptable as long as it is in the name of religion. Similar behaviour outsided of religion, and a person would be evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist, and put on some sort of medication.

I am sorry Neil, and Krumple for that matter, but this is not criticism, it is childish and spiteful derogation. Certainly religious delusion exists and there are religious fanatics with whom there is no hope of rational discussion. But you are speaking from unadulterated hatred of religion when you talk like this. In fact, the principles represented in the Bible and in the Judeo-Christian tradition are foundational to Western civilization. They are certainly open to criticism and reform, but scorn and derision are not criticism and reform. So-called 'scientific reason' has no answers to many of the deepest questions of the loneliness and anguish of human life in a vast and mainly dead universe. The fact that you feel nothing but hatred for it speaks much more about you than about what you are criticising. Every day, countless lives are saved by religiously-motivated individuals whose sole motivation is to do good and serve God.

Krumple, regret to say, I have patiently read your antireligious demagogery for over a year now, but I have had enough. You are on my banned list now, and that is permanent. See ya.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Krumple;174785 wrote:

I am reminded by the common analogy:

If I believed there was a diamond buried in my backyard the size of a refrigerator without actually providing any evidence for it's existence people would brand me as a lunatic for believing it. Even if I were to say well although I have never actually seen the diamond, my belief in it gives my life meaning and I really wouldn't want to live in a world where there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard.

Just because a belief makes you feel good, does not qualify it to be something worth evangelizing about if it does not have support to back up the claims.

No where else in society is this acceptable behavior, yet when it comes to religion we get this off limits card played. The thing is, it is no different than a person talking about a diamond buried in their back yard.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing else in our world gets a free bee so why should we stop at religion?

Thank you for this analogy. This is a very useful way to think about blind faith, and about many of the philosophies that are circulating today. "If it's true for you, that's great. I have no right to intrude upon that."

I will still hold that there IS extraordinary evidence for God and creation, but I also admit that I seem to always fall back to discussing that particular topic. This is because of how important I feel it is to point it out, but I will try to adhere to the topic.

In response to the OP: The problem of evil is not really a problem for theists, in that it does not provide sufficient reasoning to disbelieve in the existence of God. I believe it's perfectly plausible that God actually causes bad things to happen. Learning lessons is part of the human experience, and makes our existence worth something. If there was no suffering or evil, though, there would be no reason to learn any lessons.

And in regard to predestination vs. free will--that's a theological/philosophical point that's still up for debate, and probably will be for eternity. But it's purely based in curiosity. It's fun and intriguing to hypothesize about, but in the end we can't really know the answer.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;175163 wrote:

I am sorry Neil, and Krumple for that matter, but this is not criticism, it is childish and spiteful derogation. . .

Krumple, regret to say, I have patiently read your antireligious demagogery for over a year now, but I have had enough. You are on my banned list now, and that is permanent. See ya.

jeeprs? Are you really sure you are not

[INDENT]1) over reacting,
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]2 being slightly more than simply 'somewhat' self-contradictory in the action of verbal speaking and the action of non-verbal statements made as communicated through actions taken?
[/INDENT]

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

If there were no disasters and evils in the world, what reason would there be to believe in God? Why would need to turn to something beyond our comprehensions if we shed no tears in need of drying? Or if we had no questions about this exact topic? God, in the sense that everyone is talking about, is brilliant in that it makes everyone think about it's power over the world, and that brings believers.

Furthermore, C.S. Lewis is a good read for religious people, as he thinks that God is the Father, just like our own fathers are. God is the perfect Father, of course, who let's his sons and daughters out into the world with guidance and support, but not control. He lets them learn for themselves in order to gain their respect. This is why God lets disasters happen: in order to for "his" children to learn.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

Hi KJ - I probably did over-react. But I have to be upfront about the fact that there are certain places I won't go. There are people on the Forum who say that religious belief is immoral, that it is something that should be destroyed or abandoned. I don't regard that as a just criticism and I don't want to have that discussion. If I wanted to have that discussion, I would join the dawkins forum, which is set up by and for people who hate anything spiritual. But I am not one of them.

I might need to change my approach, talk about other subjects, or perhaps talk to a different audience, but that conversation I can no longer be party to.

It is indeed true that there is such a thing as false religious consciousness and religious delusion. But to say that all religion is a false consciousness and a delusion is not a correction to this view, it is the very worst manifestation of it.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Thanks for your reply; I do both reason and feel that I can undestand and relate to it. Towards all (not just towards myself or yourself) I would, nevertheless, and at the same time, encourage critically thinking in a less emotionally tempered effort--even if any presentations, statements, or claims were made so as to do no more than only validate a position/understanding held.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

well I agree with that. I think there are plenty of fair criticisms that can be made. Many of my best friends, and most of my relatives, for that matter, are pretty indifferent to anything religious. I don't preach at them or even talk to them about it - that is what I come here for. I am prepared to be critical and to be criticized, but there is a particular type of attitude that I can't deal with.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Hi KJ - I probably did over-react. But I have to be upfront about the fact that there are certain places I won't go. There are people on the Forum who say that religious belief is immoral, that it is something that should be destroyed or abandoned. I don't regard that as a just criticism and I don't want to have that discussion. If I wanted to have that discussion, I would join the dawkins forum, which is set up by and for people who hate anything spiritual. But I am not one of them.

I might need to change my approach, talk about other subjects, or perhaps talk to a different audience, but that conversation I can no longer be party to.

It is indeed true that there is such a thing as false religious consciousness and religious delusion. But to say that all religion is a false consciousness and a delusion is not a correction to this view, it is the very worst manifestation of it.

In a way jeeprs you actually helped me to state my point. My point was that religion gets a off limits card when it comes to scrutiny of the subject, where as all other things don't.

I see you do this with your views on science, which i have seen from what you mention. Although we might have varying views on science i am far from wanting to silence you just because i don't agree. But you see my comments on religion as if they are completely without basis and nothing but inflammatory but they are not. I think this is you playing that religion is off limits card.

i thought you brought up a great point the other day when you pinned me on being a naive realist. Which I am more than happy to admit that I am, however; so are you. I feel that if you reject the aspect of your own naive realism then you are completely ignoring the fact that you use these concepts to survive on a daily basis. The only objection that i can pick out that you have against naive realism is that it doesn't accept any notion of unfounded things, such as a soul, gods or even spirituality. If you reject naive realism than really all you become is an irrationalist. But why?

If you are stating that there are things in reality by which we can not use our senses to determine or any experience to know other than through some other means then it would open the door to any and everything. Meaning that anything anyone just dreams up would have to be just as creditable as everything else that is known or experienced. Since you don't actually have any way to weight the knowledge of the thing in which you are discussing. So all things are just as valid, but if we go down that road, our reality and what we hold as being rational would completely disappear. We would have no basis for science at all then. We would have no basis for laws or even morality because people could come up with completely wacky ideas and we would have to accept them on the merit as everything else.

So as you see, rejecting your naive realism you open the door to chaos, superstition, myths are taken as literal truths, and knowledge is useless.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I do find that in most areas, other than the G*d question, I appreciate your arguments, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. But I can't help but feel from your responses an animosity towards Christianity, and I can't deal with it. I am sure this is personal conditioning - even though I don't ID myself as Christian, I have a strong core of Christian identity. I am not going to apologize for that, nor does it undermine my commitment to the Buddhist path. However it does affect my response to some of your comments. It feels like a member of my family is being insulted. That is my gut reaction.

However I am very glad you have come up with this next argument, because it really is something that I feel I can address philosophically, and I would not like to remain in this personal type of space. I want to get into a space where things like this can be discussed in a kind of dispersonal way.

Quote:

If you are stating that there are things in reality by which we can not use our senses to determine or any experience to know other than through some other means then it would open the door to any and everything. Meaning that anything anyone just dreams up would have to be just as creditable as everything else that is known or experienced.

I think there are transcendent truths. This is partially from experience but also from reason. Take the Buddhist tradition for one. At the outset, the Buddha said, at the time of his enlightenment, that he had found a truth which was deep, profound, difficult to fathom, and perceivable only by the wise. He hesitated about teaching it at all, according to legend, and only agreed to do so after intercession by the God Brahma.

Now do I believe that Gautama actually did find such a truth? Well, yes I do. Why do I? Because at least some elements of it - even if I cannot see the full extent of it - some elements have been presented consistently by the Buddhist tradition, ever since that time. Now these things might be ascertained to be true by experience, but certainly not be the experiences of the 'untutored worlding'. So in order to understand these types of truths, commitment is necessary, and practice of the discipline and attitudes, which is in fact the Buddhist way.

But generations of practitioners have, in fact, attested to the fact that in undertaking this practice, learning this discipline, certain transcendent truths can become known to us. And indeed I have reason in my own experience to believe this is true, even acknowledging the fact that I am by no means an enlightened being. But I think there is a type of transcendent or spiritual truth which can be verified in experience.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

I do find that in most areas, other than the G*d question, I appreciate your arguments, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. But I can't help but feel from your responses an animosity towards Christianity, and I can't deal with it. I am sure this is personal conditioning - even though I don't ID myself as Christian, I have a strong core of Christian identity. I am not going to apologize for that, nor does it undermine my commitment to the Buddhist path. However it does affect my response to some of your comments. It feels like a member of my family is being insulted. That is my gut reaction.

noted.

Quote:

If you are stating that there are things in reality by which we can not use our senses to determine or any experience to know other than through some other means then it would open the door to any and everything. Meaning that anything anyone just dreams up would have to be just as creditable as everything else that is known or experienced.

jeeprs wrote:

I think there are transcendent truths. This is partially from experience but also from reason. Take the Buddhist tradition for one. At the outset, the Buddha said, at the time of his enlightenment, that he had found a truth which was deep, profound, difficult to fathom, and perceivable only by the wise.

I agree as well, i think he did discover something profound, but at the same time i don't consider it something outside the realm of the mind. It is something tangible and not something you have to have faith in. It is something that everyone can experience without needing to conform to a set standard of beliefs. Sure there is a method but it actually is only a guide.

jeeprs wrote:

He hesitated about teaching it at all, according to legend, and only agreed to do so after intercession by the God Brahma.

See now i think this is funny, not to insult you but because of a past experience i had with this very same comment. Are you aware that many Hindus actually find this statement offensive? Perhaps i should explain a little. The way i see the differences between Islam and Christianity is similar to the comparison between Hinduism and Buddhism. Muslims will claim that Christians are inferior and Christians will claim that Muslims are inferior. Not in all cases but for the most part. Something similar happens between Hindus and Buddhists.

I experienced it one day when i was having a discussion with a group of Hindus. I had brought up the same comment you did and they laughed and told me that it is a condescending remark to make. I was a little surprised by their reaction and asked for them to explain. They told me that the statement implies that the Buddha had knowledge that Brahma did not have and so Brahma supplicates to the Buddha to teach this new wisdom. At first I argued that it does not say that the Buddha was superior to Brahma, but as they continued it began to take shape as actually saying that.

Think about it. Brahma is a god and if Hinduism is a sure method then why would Brahma even care about the Buddha teaching? He wouldn't because he would know that Hinduism itself is a sure path, however; if Buddhist wanted to proclaim a better path, then they would renounce Hinduism as being a lesser vehicle and by doing this they use Brahma as being the supplicant to the Buddha. This same thing will happen another time within the Buddha's teachings to defame Hinduism as being a lessor vehicle and Buddhism being a more ideal path.

jeeprs wrote:

Now do I believe that Gautama actually did find such a truth? Well, yes I do. Why do I? Because at least some elements of it - even if I cannot see the full extent of it - some elements have been presented consistently by the Buddhist tradition, ever since that time. Now these things might be ascertained to be true by experience, but certainly not be the experiences of the 'untutored worlding'. So in order to understand these types of truths, commitment is necessary, and practice of the discipline and attitudes, which is in fact the Buddhist way.

Do i think he discovered a profound truth. Yep, but do I think it is something mysterious or beyond the scope of human experience? Nope. A teacher of mine put it really well, "Enlightenment is like understanding the secret to riding a bike, before enlightenment you don't know what it is you are after, just like before you learn to ride a bike, you have fears and uncertainties about your ability but after enlightenment you don't question the process, you just ride the bike."

jeeprs wrote:

But generations of practitioners have, in fact, attested to the fact that in undertaking this practice, learning this discipline, certain transcendent truths can become known to us. And indeed I have reason in my own experience to believe this is true, even acknowledging the fact that I am by no means an enlightened being. But I think there is a type of transcendent or spiritual truth which can be verified in experience.

I think part of the problem with Buddhism is that people want to mystify it and push it into this same realm of mystical experience that is some how out of reach from normal every day people. That you have to completely ignore all life and abandon it to obtain the understand the secret teaching. I think that sort of thinking has caused a major thorn and defacing of what Buddhism was suppose to be about.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Enlightenment is like understanding the secret to riding a bike, before enlightenment you don't know what it is you are after, just like before you learn to ride a bike, you have fears and uncertainties about your ability but after enlightenment you don't question the process, you just ride the bike."

Well spoken, but I think we need to acknowledge the fact that 'the bike' is the body and 'the path' includes your physical death. if you're OK with that, then I have no problems with the analogy.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

bearing in mind that you have said before that suffering is really not too much of a problem.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Think about it. Brahma is a god and if Hinduism is a sure method then why would Brahma even care about the Buddha teaching?

Because only a human can realize Nirvana. Of course the Hindus don't like it. Why ask them? it is like asking Kennethamy to extol the virtues of Obama.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

bearing in mind that you have said before that suffering is really not too much of a problem.

well i think it is the major hangup for most especially for westerners because the most typical definition for what the Buddha was talking about as being the main focus is dukkha which gets generally defined as suffering. So people assume Buddhism is all about ending suffering or that life is somehow nothing but suffering. Only those who probe more find out that the suffering is only one tiny part of what the Buddha was alluding to, but since this common mistaken happens it is easy for people to get hung up on it.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

This oil leak is a system breaking down which is affecting all life on the planet. No matter what the cause of leak, the bottom line is that the oil floating around in the ocean would not be there if we hadn't put the oil there in the first place. What's worse is that the motivation behind putting the pipe there was for money (a piece of paper with numbers and pictures on it). Greed is the cause of the leak, not God.

Lets use this disaster as a springboard to treating this planet as a sanctuary rather than an ash tray. It is time for a global change of consciousness. Continuing on our current path can only end with more death. Our use and dependency on oil, along with deforestation and ecosystem obliteration in the name of condos, is killing the planet.

And as for the posts about the charactoristics of God:
I do not believe in a cruel God. Men are cruel, and God cannot stop men from doing evil... because if he did we would not have free will. On the other hand, God can and does help those who are taking action through love. The holocaust is an example where this can be seen. God did not kill Hitler or stop the soldiers from killing all those people. Hitler planned on taking over the whole world. He also planned on making a lot of people extinct. People came together, they called on God for strenth to fight this foe. We were not fighting because of hatred or greed... we fought for the love of life and the love of freedom. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31

1 Reply

@Understanding,

Understanding wrote:

And as for the posts about the charactoristics of God:
I do not believe in a cruel God. Men are cruel, and God cannot stop men from doing evil... because if he did we would not have free will. On the other hand, God can and does help those who are taking action through love. The holocaust is an example where this can be seen. God did not kill Hitler or stop the soldiers from killing all those people. Hitler planned on taking over the whole world. He also planned on making a lot of people extinct. People came together, they called on God for strenth to fight this foe. We were not fighting because of hatred or greed... we fought for the love of life and the love of freedom. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31

yeah but Hitler believed he was doing gods work by exterminating the Jews. you don't think he was praying for god to give him strength? just listen to all the German war songs, they mention god all the time. but i guess that was a different god he was praying to.

preventing evil in no way would prevent free will. this is just some silly tag line that Christians came up with to try and promote the fact that god allows evil to occur in the world.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

yeah but Hitler believed he was doing gods work by exterminating the Jews.

Therefore people who pray to god are like Hitler, is that right Krumple?

0 Replies

@Wozz,

God is some concept for me, a wonderful manifestation of nomadic wandering and introspection. This is not to discredit some ultimate cause or even a cosmic consciousness but to state I am very much agnostic on the position of whether there is a benign or malignant creator but I tend to lean to the non-believer portion of the agnostic scale - an agnostic-atheism to be precise.

On the matter of religious explanation of "evil" it is an incredibly troublesome topic for religious groups to jump. The generic explanation is that there was some mishap on behalf of humankind and god decided we needed to learn from our mistakes. This is a personification to me, but if you take the biblical account as Truth I can understand the reasoning of God being some father who is willing to allow his offspring to see their supposedly deviant ways -- whether or not this is evil or has "gone too far" is up to your own discretion.

It is ultimately your own choice and own beliefs as to why God supposedly did what He/She/It did. But then again, which god? Of course in general I speak of the Abrahamic variety.

Regards,

Minimal.

0 Replies

Another "God" question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know