How can God not exist?

[Mind Over Matter]

Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God.

The crucial premises in my argument are 2 and 3:
2. We are dependent beings.
3. We cannot actually create anything on our own, we can only use and rearrange what is already available (both physically and mentally).


Many (attempts of) proofs (or disproofs) about God are focused on having the correct/right/adequate idea of God.
I contend for a much broader understanding of the issue, hence Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God.

Being made in the image and likeness of God, we have His "handprint" within us, and at least a dim perception of Him as a consequence. According to the account of the fall however, that perception wasn't originally dim or non-existent but rather was also a consequence, resulting from a preference for living life apart from a consciousness of His godhood and therefore of His very existence, let alone of His rightful authority over us. Revelation seeks to reconcile that severed relationship which resulted in our separation from Him-saving us from our lost condition. When we receive that revelation we should, like sheep recognizing the long-lost voice of the Shepard, respond to that voice and turn back to Him.

The truths revealed by our Church constitute that voice, that revelation/action by God in this world, with faith and hope-composed of the knowledge of those truths and the grace to believe in those truths and place our confidence in them-the result.

 

[SciWriter]

Being made in the image and likeness of God, we have His "handprint" within us, and at least a dim perception of Him as a consequence. According to the account of the fall however, that perception wasn't originally dim or non-existent but rather was also a consequence, resulting from a preference for living life apart from a consciousness of His godhood and therefore of His very existence, let alone of His rightful authority over us. Revelation seeks to reconcile that severed relationship which resulted in our separation from Him-saving us from our lost condition. When we receive that revelation we should, like sheep recognizing the long-lost voice of the Shepard, respond to that voice and turn back to Him.

The truths revealed by our Church constitute that voice, that revelation/action by God in this world, with faith and hope-composed of the knowledge of those truths and the grace to believe in those truths and place our confidence in them-the result.

Supposition.

It gets worse:

Higher, Highest, or Any Intelligence at All as the First

It is utterly impossible for a system of being of an ultimate intelligence called God to exist first and foremost right off of the bat, He then creating all of the specific particulars of the cosmos through thinking and planning, with perhaps some optional maintenance and control every where and every time thereafter, because, simply, systems cannot be elemental.

Self-contradiction is the only method by which a universal negative can be undone, and so I have employed it. Look to the higher complexity of the future for some approximate but still finite higher universal mind, not to the simpler and more elemental tiny stuff of the past. The complete wrong direction was being looked at the whole time. Turn, turn around. Look at how long it took even for us infant sapiens to become sentient.

It disproves God, still, but believers don’t care about this because strong emotions and felt physical sensations have a fairly direct pathway into consciousness, which is even understood to be so by science, along with the fulfilled wish of being taken care of here and looked after in the afterlife of the soul, which is not a bad deal at all compared to what’s behind door number zero. I only present the disproof for those who really want to know and can know, their reasoning untrumped by anything else.

For the rest it may still at least serve as a counterweight to proclaiming the hypothesis of the universal negative as to be sure truth and fact (for it isn’t).

 

[Mind Over Matter]

No, I do not think that our existence is optional. I find it demoralizing to think that we could not have existed.
Whether and what kind of bodies we have is optional, but to think that I, the soul, could also not exist is demoralizing.
Yes, I think that both God and we are necessary beings.
If I am not necessary, this means that all my needs, interest and concerns, including those about God, are not necessary either. If I and my needs, interests and concerns are not necessary, this means that there exists no necessary relationship between me and God. Which opens up a number of problems.
Alas, this is topic for another thread!

Interesting. I certainly didn't expect you to go there. I suppose all I can say is that I am sorry you find it demoralizing that you could have not existed, but it is the truth. Being necessary being is the very definition of God, and you are not He. I assume to be logically consistent, you hold that your soul pre-existed your body? And has always existed? So, before Abraham was born, "you were"? If there was ever a time when you were not, then you are of necessity contingent being.

Your needs can be necessary "for you" without your very being being necessary.

Surely we play a part in what we do; but we cannot take credit.

Sure we can. If I write a book, I am the author. Giving credit to anyone or anything else, and denying it to myself is silly, and contradicts common sense and all modes of speech.

And therein lies the problem: my senses cannot be relied on to give me an objective perspective.

Unless we go with "Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God." - and presume that this is good enough.

Your senses can be relied upon to give you a correct picture of reality. Even if you see in color but a dog does not, you are both perceiving objective reality, but are noticing different aspects of it. Just because a dog doesn't see the nuances of the color spectrum reflecting off of the surface of a chair does not mean it cannot perceive the chair correctly.

I am not sure about that, given that I can trace most of my ideas to already existing ideas from other people, or a variation or rearrangement of those ideas, and I am quite sure the rest is similar.
I daren't say I have ever had a truly original idea.

If you rearrange the ideas of others, or the forms you perceive from nature, then the new arrangement you have made is a new and different idea from what has come before it, one which you created. A unicorn is simply the idea of a horse and a horn combined in a way that does not occur in nature. You might have never seen a unicorn, but you can take these two ideas and combine them into something new. Grantly in the case of a unicorn, someone had that idea before you, but you can look around the room you are in now and combine some ideas of your own and invent something new.

My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such.
I am inclined to agree with Merton -

"The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience." - Thomas Merton

The limitations you seem to think exist can only lead to the conclusion that there is no such thing as knowledge. If you deny the reliability of the senses, everything else is nonsensical.

 

[Yazata]

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not "obvious" from the suttas that the Buddha rejected belief in God as such.

We would have to define the English word "God" and then try to translate that definition into the (very poorly understood) 5'th century BCE Indian conceptual vocabulary before we can say what the Buddha's opinion was on "God", or whether he even imagined such a thing.

What he specifically rejected was belief in a creationist theistic determinist system (a contemporary variation of that are some Protestant schools; AN 3.61), belief that Brahma is the supreme god (MN 49), and speculation or conjecture about the origin of the world, self and such (AN 4.77).

On the face of it, that seems to suggest some sort of rejection of views analogous to Western-style monotheism.

This is often, by Buddhists themselves, interpreted as a wholesale rejection of theism - when in fact it is not.

What kind of possibility of theism do you think remains in early Buddhism?

Some Hindu scholars in India are fond of interpreting the Buddha as if he accepted an Advaitic-style 'Atman/Brahman' concept, arguing only for its ineffability and insisting upon our not identifying our phenomenal selves with this purported transcendental self (their interpretation of the 'anatta' doctrine). But that interpretation is controversial, debatable both philosophically and textually. Some later Buddhist thinkers certainly did move in that direction and some of the later Mahayana ideas about 'mind-only', Tathagatagarbha and 'Buddha-nature' do bear considerable resemblance to Advaita. There's a large scholarly literature of the mutual interactions between the later Indian Buddhists and the early Vedantists. But that's 1,000 years after the time of the Buddha. And even these later Mahayana ideas don't bear a great deal of resemblance to Judeo-Christian-Islamic-style personal theism.

Moreover, notions of Buddhist atheism vary, depending on whether the Buddhist clergy took up debate with the Christian missionaries or not. It did so in Thailand, for example, so Thai Buddhism is atheistic in the way Western atheism is. Elsewhere, it is theistic in some way, or does not have a worked out doctrine against theism.

I think that Theravada is generally non-theist, at least by default, and that's not just as the result of a modern reaction against Christian missionaries. In traditional Buddhism generally, gods remain part of samsara, they are mortal (if extremely long-lived) and are still in need of enlightenment themselves, just as we are.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not "obvious" from the suttas that the Buddha rejected belief in God as such.
What he specifically rejected was belief in a creationist theistic determinist system (a contemporary variation of that are some Protestant schools; AN 3.61), belief that Brahma is the supreme god (MN 49), and speculation or conjecture about the origin of the world, self and such (AN 4.77).

I did not say that Buddha rejected all notions of there being "gods" (as in "beings more powerful than ourselves" who arose before we did). I said he rejected the notion of there being a "Creator". I should not have said that he "expressly" did so, but rather that he taught that it was a incorrect view, as I understand the Brahmajala. There, one of the stories is about Brahma, the creator deity, simply having been the first being in an expanding universe and wishing for other beings to exist. When other beings do come into existence, Brahma incorrectly assumes he willed them into being, and those later beings incorrectly assume that Brahma created them because he was there before they were and they are less powerful and more short-lived than Brahma.

I am personally not sure one could make the Judeo-Christian God consistent with the three marks of existence. He is a being who is supposed to be eternal and to have a permanent "self" that is separate and distinct from His creation. (I think one could debate whether or not God ever "suffers" in the Buddhist sense, but I think He must, since the Christian understanding is that his human creations keep defying Him and thereby needlessly hurting themselves.)

 

[wynn]

I did not say that Buddha rejected all notions of there being "gods" (as in "beings more powerful than ourselves" who arose before we did). I said he rejected the notion of there being a "Creator". I should not have said that he "expressly" did so, but rather that he taught that it was a incorrect view, as I understand the Brahmajala. There, one of the stories is about Brahma, the creator deity, simply having been the first being in an expanding universe and wishing for other beings to exist. When other beings do come into existence, Brahma incorrectly assumes he willed them into being, and those later beings incorrectly assume that Brahma created them because he was there before they were and they are less powerful and more short-lived than Brahma.

All this means is that Brahma is not the Supreme.

I am personally not sure one could make the Judeo-Christian God consistent with the three marks of existence. He is a being who is supposed to be eternal and to have a permanent "self" that is separate and distinct from His creation. (I think one could debate whether or not God ever "suffers" in the Buddhist sense, but I think He must, since the Christian understanding is that his human creations keep defying Him and thereby needlessly hurting themselves.)

The three characteristics (impermanence, insufficience and not-self) pertain to the aggregates.

 

[Pandaemoni]

All this means is that Brahma is not the Supreme.

Yes, and my original point was that not everyone shares Jan Ardena's intuition that there must be a "supreme" figure...as it was asserted that even polytheistic cultures all believe or believed that there is a supreme being to which their own gods answered.

 

[wynn]

Yes, and my original point was that not everyone shares Jan Ardena's intuition that there must be a "supreme" figure...as it was asserted that even polytheistic cultures all believe or believed that there is a supreme being to which their own gods answered.

I would say that even in Theravada Buddhism, there is the notion of a supreme being, even if it is only implied as such.

In the aforementioned sutta where Brahma challenges the Buddha, the Buddha wins - so the Buddha is the superior one.
Buddhists also believe that there is only one rightfully self-awakened Buddha per era - again, there is thus the notion of a supreme being.
Buddhists worship the Buddha (or his buddhahood) - worship is something reserved for those deemed superior.


While Buddhism is the main contender for the notion that God does not exist, I think the real challenge related to it is in exploring what "supreme being" could mean, in Buddhism and elsewhere.

It seems that when we think of "God" or "supreme being" and whether God exists, we tend to think in terms of "provider", "controller" or "someone who bears all the responsibility" - and Buddhism characteristically does not cater to such notions of a supreme being, so it seems atheistic.

On the other hand, with some stepping outside of the Western box, we can imagine that the central characteristics of God would also be "teacher of mankind", "supremely renounced", "supreme wellwisher of all living beings".
Which are also the Buddha's characteristics.

 

[Yazata]

I would say that even in Theravada Buddhism, there is the notion of a supreme being, even if it is only implied as such.

Virtually every Theravada Buddhist would disagree with that characterization of their tradition. Conceivably 'nirvana' might qualify, I guess, assuming that it's interpreted ontologically as a kind of being. The abhidhamma has it classified as an unconditioned 'dhamma'. There's scholarly debate about that.

But as Pandaemoni points out, a personal God would, simply by being personal, presumably still be subject to the three marks and remain part of samsara. Theravada Buddhism isn't about winning the favor of a "supreme" transcendental self or communing with "him", let alone ascending to become "him" somehow. It's more about deconstructing selfhood by resolving it into the aggregates.

Which leaves the whole idea of a monotheistic deity rather problematic.

In the aforementioned sutta where Brahma challenges the Buddha, the Buddha wins - so the Buddha is the superior one. Buddhists also believe that there is only one rightfully self-awakened Buddha per era - again, there is thus the notion of a supreme being.

While Buddhism is the main contender for the notion that God does not exist, I think the real challenge related to it is in exploring what "supreme being" could mean, in Buddhism and elsewhere.

It seems that when we think of "God" or "supreme being" and whether God exists, we tend to think in terms of "provider", "controller" or "someone who bears all the responsibility" - and Buddhism characteristically does not cater to such notions of a supreme being, so it seems atheistic.

On the other hand, with some stepping outside of the Western box, we can imagine that the central characteristics of God would also be "teacher of mankind", "supremely renounced", "supreme wellwisher of all living beings".

Which are also the Buddha's characteristics.

So are you really suggesting that Theravada Buddhists are actually monotheists (and just pretend not to be in order to confound Christian missionaries) and that the Buddha is in fact the one monotheist deity (and thus arguably identical with the God of the Bible)? That's an original interpretation, that's for sure.

 

[wynn]

Virtually every Theravada Buddhist would disagree with that characterization of their tradition.

I know.

But as Pandaemoni points out, a personal God would, simply by being personal, presumably still be subject to the three marks and remain part of samsara. Theravada Buddhism isn't about winning the favor of a "supreme" transcendental self or communing with "him", let alone ascending to become "him" somehow. It's more about deconstructing selfhood by resolving it into the aggregates.

There is also a lot of debate among Buddhist traditions on the issue of selfhood.
Notably, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (one of the leading translators) maintains that the Buddha never said there is ultimately no self, just that the aggregates (which we usually identify with) are not the self.
(Here, it is important to understand Buddhist methods of asking questions and answering them, I have often mentioned the two suttas that deal with this explicitly. "The aggregates are not the self" is an example of a qualified answer.)

So are you really suggesting that Theravada Buddhists are actually monotheists (and just pretend not to be in order to confound Christian missionaries) and that the Buddha is in fact the one monotheist deity (and thus arguably identical with the God of the Bible)? That's an original interpretation, that's for sure.

Actually, in some Hindu schools, they believe that the Buddha is an incarnation of God that appears at a time when theists become unruly and re-establishes the Dharma.

(Although personally, I didn't know anything about that when I first got involved with Buddhism. I turned to Buddhism after a profound disappointment with Christianity and Christians, and I have known many people who had a similar history.)

And no, I really do not think that Theravada Buddhists are actually monotheists and just pretend not to be in order to confound Christian missionaries.
I know many Theravadans have an axe to grind with Christians and Christianity, and fiercely so!

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I would say that even in Theravada Buddhism, there is the notion of a supreme being, even if it is only implied as such.

In the aforementioned sutta where Brahma challenges the Buddha, the Buddha wins - so the Buddha is the superior one.
Buddhists also believe that there is only one rightfully self-awakened Buddha per era - again, there is thus the notion of a supreme being.
Buddhists worship the Buddha (or his buddhahood) - worship is something reserved for those deemed superior.


While Buddhism is the main contender for the notion that God does not exist, I think the real challenge related to it is in exploring what "supreme being" could mean, in Buddhism and elsewhere.

It seems that when we think of "God" or "supreme being" and whether God exists, we tend to think in terms of "provider", "controller" or "someone who bears all the responsibility" - and Buddhism characteristically does not cater to such notions of a supreme being, so it seems atheistic.

On the other hand, with some stepping outside of the Western box, we can imagine that the central characteristics of God would also be "teacher of mankind", "supremely renounced", "supreme wellwisher of all living beings".
Which are also the Buddha's characteristics.

According to Buddhist friends there are many gods in Buddhism. All with a small g. For them they are not important and there is no equivalent of the Abrahamic God, though you might want to read the section of the Brahmajala sutta for a more full and accurate statement of the Buddhist position.

The gods are not perfect and can make mistakes. They are all subject to karma and to reincarnation. They are alive and will all attain nirvana eventually. :shrug:

Buddhism does not concern itself much with origins. They are in a situation of suffering and they have a way out of that suffering. All the rest is useless. The standard Buddhist world view is an endless succession of universes one after the other with no end in sight and no beginning in sight.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I would say that even in Theravada Buddhism, there is the notion of a supreme being, even if it is only implied as such.

In the aforementioned sutta where Brahma challenges the Buddha, the Buddha wins - so the Buddha is the superior one.
Buddhists also believe that there is only one rightfully self-awakened Buddha per era - again, there is thus the notion of a supreme being.
Buddhists worship the Buddha (or his buddhahood) - worship is something reserved for those deemed superior.

Whereas Jan Ardena's "supreme" being is an omnipotent being that necessarily must exist. The Buddha may have the greatest wisdom and knowledge of any other being, but as I understand it would not have complete omnipotence over the whole of universe.

Would you say that any threads of buddhist thought see having a buddha as philosophically "necessary" (i.e., there could never be a rational way in which no buddha could exist)?

 

[wynn]

Would you say that any threads of buddhist thought see having a buddha as philosophically "necessary" (i.e., there could never be a rational way in which no buddha could exist)?

As far as I understood Buddhism, there are eras and places that are devoid of the Buddha's teachings.
The Buddhist understanding of time is cyclical, though, so even if the Dharma is lost for some time, it will sooner or later appear again.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pandaemoni

But the answer is the same as "How can a mind invent magic, when magic never existed?" or "How can mankind imagine the Nine Realms of Norse legend, when eight of those places are not Earth and never existed?" Your response would seem to be that those 8 places are in a sense like Earth (even though not entirely like Earth) so there is a model on which the imaginative authors simply added variations...just as Tolkien created Valinor as the homeland of the elves who leave Middle-Earth (akin to the Norse Alfheimr).

My point is, our imagination cannot concieve of something that doesn't exist, even if we attempt to mix up the images ie, a horse with an elephants trunk, and a couple of handbags for eyes. Everything is a product of our reality in some form or other.

How is it possible that primitive man come with a concept of a being who created the Earth, and the upper planetary systmem (heavens). How would primitive man conceive of atoms and their relationship to time? How they know that the universe is expanding? How would they conceptualise the distance of the sun, and the movement of planets (orbits)? And why should we accept this concept as nothing more than an explanation to appease their fear of death?

Assuming I follow that argument correctly, I do not believe that God is unlike other things in our experience.

It's easy to say that now, because the concept of God exists, and you are simply
choosing that God is unlike other things within our experience.

Remember, these so called primitive people passed this information, in tact, to future generations, up until 5-6000 years ago when it was written down. The information didn't change. So I suggest you read up on the vedas (namely Bhagavat Purana) to see for yourself how the concept of God, if it was indeed a man-made construct, falls way outside of any day to day experience.

Infinity is not an unfamiliar concept, and none of the powers we usually ascribe to God are all that mind blowing.

So for example, breathing out universes from the pores of His skin, and destroying them on breathing in, is not mind blowing?

That's just off the top of my head.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My point is, our imagination cannot concieve of something that doesn't exist

How do you know?
Isn't that what imagination does, generally?

 

[gmilam]

Such inane comments is why it's best to have Jan on ignore.

(I wonder if Edison was aware that his inventions already existed?)

 

[spidergoat]

My point is, our imagination cannot concieve of something that doesn't exist, even if we attempt to mix up the images ie, a horse with an elephants trunk, and a couple of handbags for eyes. Everything is a product of our reality in some form or other.

How is it possible that primitive man come with a concept of a being who created the Earth, and the upper planetary systmem (heavens).

jan.

No one does actually have a conception of God. It's just a collection of attributes we think such a thing would have, superlative in every way, there is no definition one could pin down, which is exactly why it's impossible to debate. Everyone has a conception of a being, even a powerful one, it's like a great warrior or king.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Such inane comments is why it's best to have Jan on ignore.

(I wonder if Edison was aware that his inventions already existed?)

Excuse me?
My comments aren't inane, and is crucial to the question posed in the opening thread.

All the information I gave are part of ancient religious text, way before modern science.

As for your question on Edison Edison goes...


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No one does actually have a conception of God. It's just a collection of attributes we think such a thing would have, superlative in every way, there is no definition one could pin down, which is exactly why it's impossible to debate. Everyone has a conception of a being, even a powerful one, it's like a great warrior or king.

So why do all the ancient scriptures concur, regarding God?
If what you say it true, then different scriptures would say different things.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

They do say different things. No one can agree if it's one (monotheism), multifaceted (animism, shinto), many (paganism) just a word for everything (deism, hinduism), or a word used to describe an altered state of consciousness (Buddhism sometimes).