I'm saying that the Abrahamic God is traditionally described as being empirically observable by nature.
I'm describing the concept of the Abrahamic God.
I'm arguing against the concept of a God that is real, but not observable.
Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I'm describing the concept of the Abrahamic God.
I'm arguing against the concept of a God that is real, but not observable.
How would we confirm this notion?
Does that mean that God, while being the Supreme Original Cause, acts the same way some mean human would?
Very much so, yes.
I think that in order to view causes of suffering as a facility to become motivated to transcend suffering (basically a kind of "How many times do I have to hit you before you realize you have been doing this wrong?") would require that one apriori believe
1. that God is benevolent and created causes of suffering in an act to motivate humans to transcend suffering
and
2. that there is a way out of samsara.
And I'm not sure of either. I have some faith that there might be a way out of samsara, but I am not sure how much this has to do with God.
I think one would have to have a lot of equanimity about suffering in order to seriously consider the first proposition above.
I admit - I dread a root canal, to say nothing of Rabies. I am not glad that I dread that -because this dread doesn't really help me- but the fact is that I have this dread and there seems to be no easy way around it.
EDIT: My underlying fear is that despite belief in God, I will be stuck in samsara forever, with the same suffering going on forever - and that belief in God is a means to come to accept suffering, but not to transcend it.
Will do.
Thanks.
Last edited:
True.
And the problem we have nowadays is that we have nothing but an old book to supposedly be a record of that empirical evidence.
the easiest beginning is to examine how life exists in this world - the general principle is
BG 2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
IOW by moving from childhood to youth etc one can see first hand how consciousness is a separate issue from the body.
Obviously if you are going to have a completely separate concept of life from the body you require positive information on what that "something" is - so confirmation (knowing what I am) comes to the degree that one can confirm what god is .... since god is the consciousness on which all other conscious entities are dependent.
Thus the practical side of "confirmation" is getting free from the bodily concept of life/overcoming vice/dealing with the issues of the needs of the body vs the needs of the soul etc etc
Greenberg
....
not only does god have something to do with the means of getting out of samsara, he promotes it
BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
It means there are good reasons why some mean person cannot be the supreme original cause
the dynamic point comes when one realizes that the responsibility of suffering lies with us - IOW we made the choice to come here just like a criminal makes the choice to go to jail by doing crime - it is not the state's fault for constructing a jail
the first point is a bit off (by misuse of our independence - namely the desire to be separate from god - we have come to this world. Actually the material world is an aspect of god's benevolence since it is constitutionally impossible for us to be separate from him. If the material world did not exist we would have no facility to express our independence from god ..... imagine that
.... thats ok
not only does god have something to do with the means of getting out of samsara, he promotes it
basically that comes from deconstructing the bodily concept of life - it is not that a person get rabies - it is the body of the person that gets rabies - basically the body is kind of like a virtual reality suit that we get assigned to learn the lessons necessary to be (again) properly resocialized around the spiritual world. The soul, proper, does not get rabies.
BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.
thats the body for you - makes you wonder why we invest so much hope in it
I don't mean to scare the pants off you, but one can go on "believing" in god for millions of births. Basically our destination is determined by our desire. there are many people who perform some sort of religious duty but secretly (or even outwardly) have issues with name, fame, adoration, power, etc etc ... all these things are the special deals on offer in the material world - basically to qualify for an exit from samsara means that one has to develop unalloyed attraction to god - that is why there is a big push to somehow get in contact with god - if you can actually come to understand and see something as it is, and if it is actually wonderful/amazing/etc, one will no longer need to constantly maintain one's spiritual outlook by dreary philosophical introspection ... rather one will be spontaneous ... just like if a man has a beautiful charming wife, he doesn't need to rile himself up to get out there and make a living. Rather it comes automatically
same old boring worn out arguments Light, for any of your ideas to work, and you should know this by now, is if you first establish that a God and a Soul actually exist, you are yet to do this, anything else you post just becomes moot, without that confirmation.
but this is of topic.
to answer the OP an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.
A-Theist.
The "A" prefix means without/non/ain't got no.
As in....
Asexual=without sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without morals.(not a belief theres no morals)
Apolitical=without politics.(not a belief theres no politics)
Atypical=without/not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
Asymmetric=without/not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=without god.(no/lack belief in god)(not a belief there is no god)
thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
but this is of topic.
to answer the OP an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.
A-Theist.
The "A" prefix means without/non/ain't got no.
As in....
Asexual=without sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without morals.(not a belief theres no morals)
Apolitical=without politics.(not a belief theres no politics)
Atypical=without/not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
Asymmetric=without/not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=without god.(no/lack belief in god)(not a belief there is no god)
thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
In the above quote, I've replaced conscious, consciousness, etc. with your definition of it just so you can see how I'm reading your response. The edits are in bold.
1. IOW by moving from childhood to youth etc one can see first hand how life is a separate issue from the body I'm afraid that while it may be easy for you to see, I have a harder time. During growth, I see a body grow. There is a life associated with that body that as a baby was in one state, as youth was in another state and as an adult in another state. However, I've no reason to assume that the two growths are not directly linked, or separate, similar to how I don't assume that the growth of the hair on my head is separate from the growth of the hair on my face. I can imagine the two to be separate, for a thought experiment or something, but as far as I can observe, they seem to be directly linked. Thus, when the body expires, I can only assume so does the life... unless you can show otherwise?
2. Obviously if you are going to have a completely separate concept of life from the body you require positive information on what that "something" is I'm not sure what you're referring to with "something". Would you mind clarifying?
3. so confirmation (knowing what I am) This confirmation you're providing (knowing what I am) is not the confirmation I asked for (confirming the notion that life doesn't end (either in its liberated or conditioned states- rather, it is eternal)?
4. since god is the life on which all other living(?) entities are dependent. As this is the conclusion we're trying to get to, we need to establish the previous points.
5. Thus the practical side of "confirmation" is getting free from the bodily concept of life/overcoming vice/dealing with the issues of the needs of the body vs the needs of the soul etc etc Well, yeah. I can see the practical side of confirmation of your notion. But you still haven't confirmed that notion yet.
Before we can move forward, you must first establish somehow that life, my life, can exist after death.
Last edited:
I will postulate some common reactions I have recieved to this question.
He would have to show himself to me.
He would have to perform a some miracle (which goes against the laws of nature.
Or acts to that effect.
Jan.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
"Truth is One, but sages call it by many names."
http://www.alysion.org/ryan/poems/blindmenelephant.html
So how would you define God ?
http://www.alysion.org/ryan/poems/blindmenelephant.html
So how would you define God ?
Well first of all here is the correct poem
Secondly, this is not about theists but atheists.
How would you define evidence for God?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I guess he has to appear to a large mass of people with which he would closely interact. He also has to perform some Godly acts. And all of it would have to be videotaped and photographed.
I would then accept the existence of that 'paranormal' being, but not that he is the God from the bible. I guess God himself could find a way to prove that as well..
What is a Godly act?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Create a human from dust, or whatever. Anything unnatural.
Hmm so you see God as someone within nature ie observable, videptape-able and yet able to perform acts outside nature?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If he is supposed to exist, yes.
Doing something unnatural doesn't have to be the same as performing acts outside nature.
For example, it is unnatural for me to have a baby since I'm a guy. But having a baby in itself is not performing an act outside of nature.
I suspect that nobody can establish this in your stead; you need to do it for yourself.