Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[S.A.M.]

I don't see evidence of any kind of God.
Whether I expect evidence or not isn't really relevant, I think.

Why doesn't the kind of God I described make sense to you?
What kind of God does make sense to you?

Well its not really a thread about what I believe.

In very short, therefore, I believe in a God that is formless and universal. Along the lines of Brahman, but logical and if a part of the universe, which is unknown, then still able to communicate with it.

 

[ashura]

Well its not really a thread about what I believe.

In very short, therefore, I believe in a God that is formless and universal. Along the lines of Brahman, but logical and if a part of the universe, which is unknown, then still able to communicate with it.

So, your version of God may or may not be a part of the universe? You don't know for sure?

 

[S.A.M.]

So, your version of God may or may not be a part of the universe? You don't know for sure?

Right now, we barely know anything about the universe.

 

[ashura]

Then to answer your OP, I still couldn't think of any way to get robust evidentiary support for your God. If there's even a chance that he's not a part of our universe, which we're already so ignorant of, how would we possibly prove him to exist when he's a part of something else entirely?

Could your God exist? Sure. However, I have not observed or experienced anything that could make me conclude for sure that it does.

 

[Pete]

Well its not really a thread about what I believe.

In very short, therefore, I believe in a God that is formless and universal. Along the lines of Brahman, but logical and if a part of the universe, which is unknown, then still able to communicate with it.

The "able to communicate with it" part is testable.
Robust evidentiary support for that kind of God would be some unambiguous and recordable communication from God.
Examples might include (I'm just throwing out ideas here):

• Unambiguously answered prayers (eg if most sickness could be cured by prayer)
• God's signature in the stars (eg a well-formed circle in the CMBR)

What kind of communication do you expect from God? Do you expect anything that is distinguishable from chance occurrences?

 

[Snuffleupagus]

i believe in all the gods, plz dont hurt snuffy!!

 

[Pete]

i believe in all the gods, plz dont hurt snuffy!!

Ah, blessed Snuffy! You will be first to be eaten when Cthulu rises!

 

[Michael]

What kind of communication do you expect from God? Do you expect anything that is distinguishable from chance occurrences?

Has anyone actually heard a reply? If no then why keep praying to Xenu?

 

[Pete]

Has anyone actually heard a reply? If no then why keep praying to Xenu?

You're asking the wrong guy - I think you need first-hand descriptions. But I know that many (most?) Christians do sincerely believe that prayers get results.

 

[Michael]

 

[Michael]

I'd like to state for the record. You can be agnostic atheist and still actively disbelieve in Cthulhu, Xenu, Allah and FSM

 

[lightgigantic]

Ashura

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its not such a complex notion
the changing of the body (which goes from something the size of a football to a fully fledged adult) is due to the presence of life - and this presence of life is characterized by the same sense of self - IOW your mother still knows of you as her son, even though you are no longer football sized, etc etc - the only thing that is constant with the changes from being football sized to the the present is the symptom of life - specifically the sense of self that goes with it. Regardless of where hair is growing on your body, you don't doubt that it is due to your life .... its not like your next door neighbor grows his hair on your body
”
Yes, but my sense of self changes as time goes on as well. I may have the "same" personal identity, it still has changed. But even so, this doesn't change the fact that so far nothing demonstrates that this "life" you refer to isn't completely tethered and inseparable from the body. When the body fails, life as we know it fails. Nothing in your example of growth indicates that life, my sense of self, would go on post-mortem.

your sense of self of changes but your self, per see, doesn't - even legally you are the same person, etc etc

“
basically the "something" is god.
Developing a concept of life that isn't based on the bodily designation rests 100% on positively affirming the nature of god (although there is the argument that one can arrive at some sort of default position by logically seeing how one is not the body .... but it doesn't make for a very jolly life)

If one is thinking that life ends because the body ends, one is thinking that one is the body. IOW one doesn't know who one is (am I the football sized thing? am I the adult? am I the child of my parents?) - you cannot indicate the body in any solid singular sense since it is always in a state of flux. This tends to collide with our notion of self, since it remains constant (while issues of the ego may change, "I don't like mickey mouse anymore", the ego, per see, doesn't)
”
Just because we can't fully identify upon what our personal identity rests does not mean that we can assume it rests on God.

this statement ....

And there is no reason why you could not indicate the body.

and this statement could easily be swapped around (at least from your perspective)

Take a flowing river. At different points in time, it will have different water molecules flowing through it. The water in it at one point in time is not the same as the water at a different point. But the river is still the river. And so, though my body may change, it is still my body. It is not suddenly a new body, thus "constant". Similarly, my personal identity, my sense of self, is changing with every second, but it is still the same personal identity. Like the river, and like the body, it changes but remains constant

.
hence

SB 11.22.45 Although the illumination of a lamp consists of innumerable rays of light undergoing constant creation, transformation and destruction, a person with illusory intelligence who sees the light for a moment will speak falsely, saying, "This is the light of the lamp." As one observes a flowing river, ever-new water passes by and goes far away, yet a foolish person, observing one point in the river, falsely states, "This is the water of the river." Similarly, although the material body of a human being is constantly undergoing transformation, those who are simply wasting their lives falsely think and say that each particular stage of the body is the person's real identity

I don't need the sort of concept of a constant notion of self that you're implying.

values = needs, interests and concerns

“
Basically you cannot separate issues of god from issues of life. Kind of like when the sun rises you can see not only the sun but everything else too. to try and indicate things separately, without the presence of the sun is not possible.
”
This is only if you believe your sense of self is dependent on god and thus circular. We need to drop this for now and first establish that this god is even necessary.

as opposed to the belief that your sense of self is dependent on physical complexity ...

“

In material life we have a sense of "I" in connection to the body - which is kind of like existing in an ocean of need without any shores - This struggle for material identity is characterized by vice. If we are still dealing with issues of vice, we have not dealt with the problem (Popular new age ways of dealing with the vice is to pretend it doesn't exist .... needless to say, they are not very effective at getting free from the bodily concept of life)
”
What is the problem? Why is it a problem for me to get away from the bodily concept of life when I have no other credible concepts to go to? While the body concept has its faults, so does every other concept. Would it not make more sense to claim ignorance than to claim a fact you can't verify as truth?

The suggestion was that the truth of the matter is approached by dealing with the issues of vice. If a person doesn't see the value in such a suggestion, then obviously the need will never arise in them

“
that is introduced by the fact you cannot indicate your life in any singular sense by referring to the body, despite your sense of self remaining essentially singular. It tends to indicate that the body is maintained by your sense of self, as opposed to your sense of self arising from some sort of physical complexity.
”
Again, simply because we cannot confirm personal identity is tied to the body does not mean that we can assume it is dependent on something else, like god.

actually it is the business of assumptions to provide impetus for practical application - that is why there are some people who are busily trying to establish that personality is a result of physical complexity (I guess they find the assumption attractive). Unlike issues of god however, they cannot indicate any person who has successfully realized this assumption nor can they indicate a process that would.

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
basically there are two very different dynamics that the spiritual and material world operate on.
The material world functions on law or force (karma)
The spiritual world operates on love or personalism.

Making the decision to step out of one and enter the other holds very different consequences.
”
And love or personalism is not subject to karma?

not in its pure forms

When people think, say and do things in love or personalism, those thoughts, words and actions are not subject to karma?

basically the purifying ingredient that frees one from karma is god - so acts in relation to god (like service, love, appreciation, etc) are not only free from karma, but extinguish karma

I would have thought that all thinking, speaking and acting is subject to karma - karma in the sense of the fourfold formula mentioned eariler, indicating that interactions between thoughts, words and actions are very complex.

there is this suggestion

BG 5.8.10 A person in the divine consciousness, although engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving about, sleeping and breathing, always knows within himself that he actually does nothing at all. Because while speaking, evacuating, receiving, or opening or closing his eyes, he always knows that only the material senses are engaged with their objects and that he is aloof from them. One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water.

Water may rest on a lotus leaf but it doesn't soak it (it beads on it like a marble) - similarly there are acts of transcendence (with the senses) that are distinguishable from acts of sense gratification


“

“
Why would a good God create beings who desire to be separate from God?
”
its part of having independence - that is what distinguishes us from the external energy (or dull matter) - if we didn't have the scope to misuse independence, there would be no possibility of love or even issues of good or bad. Basically the reason we are created with independence is because we are created with the ability to love and enter into relationships of reciptocation
”
I can't argue against that directly.

However, I see no point in accepting that stance, I even think that accepting it can be harmful.

For one, because I recognize nothing about myself that I could term "soul".

soul basically just means the essence of your personality - just as you deck your body out with a clothes, similarly your soul is covered by a material body and mind

For two, because presuming that I have or am such a thing as "soul" is bound for mistaking: as far as I can tell, everything that I consider "I", "me", "mine", "my self", "who I really am", are thoughts, words and actions - and they are subject to karma. Whatever is subject to karma, is not self. I see no use in presuming a self when it's obvious that I am going to make a mistake about it.

it seems that you are saying that all your ideas of self are material - given the nature of this world, this is not unusual. Sometimes there is the analogy of a house that is being overly taxed by the government - it might seem easier to burn it down and exist without it. If however one receives knowledge how to properly maintain a house, it becomes a valuable asset.
Basically the whole business of properly discerning the self as distinct from matter is a practice (and generally it takes a lifetime)

It's is not that I am saying "There is no self". I am saying that whatever I would currently think to be my "self", would most likely not be my self - and I have no way to tell either way.
To be able to recognize what the self is, one would have to be beyond karma, or at least know the full workings of karma - and I don't know that.

there is this suggestion

SB 10.14.26 The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.

Initially it may be healthy to think in terms of the pursuit of liberation, which may entail issues of renunciation, austerity etc - however ultimately the soul has no business either with the enjoyment or renunciation of this world - kind of like if you walk up to a bank teller and tell them that you are happy that they are looking after your money so nicely (indicating the entire vault) or you are angry at them and have decided to renounce the entire vault, they would probably reply that the money was never yours in the first place.

Similarly conceiving of the self in connection or abnegation of this world remains a material conception

Moreover, having a view of self such as "I am a basically good person", "I am a basically bad person", "I am a basically neutral person", "I have a self", "I have an eternal and independent self", "I have no self", "I have a dependent self" - holding either of such views makes for deluded thinking in one way or another (because one has breached the competnece of what one actually knows for oneself), to laziness and inaction.

basically there is an aspect to the self that is greater than even the mind - I can say that the self is essentially a servant of god and you can accept it (or reject it) as a mental concept, but there is an aspect of realizing it that is deeper and arises from practice - kind of like if a hungry person is eating food, their sense of increased energy, happiness and satisfaction is more than just a mental concept (they don't need to run off to someone to get some sort of authorized certificate that they have increased vigor - it is their direct realization)

“
sure - but regardless whether one deals with it successfully or not, the ultimate result is the same for everyone in all circumstances (along with everything in relation to the body - ie friendship, position, wealth etc etc)
”
See above about karma.

karma affects the body
the degree that we are affected by the body (in terms of attachment or repulsion) indicates how much we are affected by karma

 

[S.A.M.]

The "able to communicate with it" part is testable.
Robust evidentiary support for that kind of God would be some unambiguous and recordable communication from God.
Examples might include (I'm just throwing out ideas here):

• Unambiguously answered prayers (eg if most sickness could be cured by prayer)
• God's signature in the stars (eg a well-formed circle in the CMBR)

Interesting. Even with a formless universal God, you expect communication to be along the lines of an aircraft drawing smoke signs in the sky.

What kind of communication do you expect from God? Do you expect anything that is distinguishable from chance occurrences?

Logically, I would expect communication between God and the elements of the universe, regardless of whether God is part of the universe or outside it.

 

[Pete]

Interesting. Even with a formless universal God, you expect communication to be along the lines of an aircraft drawing smoke signs in the sky.

No, I expect nothing. I'm just throwing out examples of communication.

Logically, I would expect communication between God and the elements of the universe, regardless of whether God is part of the universe or outside it.

For example?

 

[Enmos]

Interesting. Even with a formless universal God, you expect communication to be along the lines of an aircraft drawing smoke signs in the sky.


Logically, I would expect communication between God and the elements of the universe, regardless of whether God is part of the universe or outside it.

How can something exist outside of the universe ?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, I expect nothing. I'm just throwing out examples of communication.

Yes, its the examples you do throw out that are so interesting.

/just teasing

For example?

That would be a more metaphysical type of discussion. How would elements of the universe communicate? I think we still don't know enough to speculate. But logically, the universe is a "closed" system with a finite amount of energy and (perhaps) matter.

Its fine tuning and (so far) logical progression, such that every event can be traced back, at least as far as we know, to some cause, makes it highly unlikely to me that they are all random occurrences.

If they were, there would be no point in me putting on a lab coat and investigating anything.

So in my opinion, there should be a reason for the universe itself.

 

[Pete]

Yes, its the examples you do throw out that are so interesting.

/just teasing



That would be a more metaphysical type of discussion. How would elements of the universe communicate? I think we still don't know enough to speculate.

Aren't you and I elements of the Universe?

But logically, the universe is a "closed" system with a finite amount of energy and (perhaps) matter.

Its fine tuning and (so far) logical progression, such that every event can be traced back, at least as far as we know, to some cause, makes it highly unlikely to me that they are all random occurrences.

If they were, there would be no point in me putting on a lab coat and investigating anything.

So in my opinion, there should be a reason for the universe itself.

I too think there should be a reason for the Universe. Is that how you define God? Or do you assign other attributes (such as intelligence) to that reason?

 

[S.A.M.]

Aren't you and I elements of the Universe?

Yes we are. Is DNA a form of communication?

I too think there should be a reason for the Universe. Is that how you define God? Or do you assign other attributes (such as intelligence) to that reason?

There is a lot we can speculate, but mostly I think we don't know much yet to speculate. I would say there should be intelligence at some level though maybe not how we would define it.

 

[Pete]

Yes we are. Is DNA a form of communication?

Not here, Sam! There are impressionable Christians present!

There is a lot we can speculate, but mostly I think we don't know much yet to speculate. I would say there should be intelligence at some level though maybe not how we would define it.

It seems to me that anything that qualifies as intelligence would need its own explanation. I think that the ultimate reason should be exceedingly simple... otherwise, it just needs more explanation.