I guess the next question would be why we dress such an environment up such as the material world as the abode of enjoyment
Actually, I don't. I accept it for what it is since I don't believe in fairy tales.
I'm sorry, but there is no god.
- Thread starter Micholi
- Start date
Actually, I don't. I accept it for what it is since I don't believe in fairy tales.
The perfect proof of God's existence:
We can't know how something works,
so the only possibility is that God makes everything work.
The Bible is a fairytale,
but so is Einstein's theory of relativity.
God is fantasy,
but so are the gods of science: natural laws
It doesn't matter what we call it,
because it's all the same: fantasy, nothing.
Fantasy, nothing, explains everything.
We can't know how something works,
so the only possibility is that God makes everything work.
The Bible is a fairytale,
but so is Einstein's theory of relativity.
God is fantasy,
but so are the gods of science: natural laws
It doesn't matter what we call it,
because it's all the same: fantasy, nothing.
Fantasy, nothing, explains everything.
Last edited:
It's always humorous to see the lengths people will go to to fashion their own elaborate overlays on nature to satisfy the simple human need to have an "answer" for this or that.
I say "there is no god" and you say "Oh yes there is" with just as much certainty. You mock my certainty, and I mock yours. Are we not both fools? You have no way to prove to me the existence of some god, who, if it exists, appears to manifest itself as what I think of as "nature" and I have no way to prove the non-existence of such an entity, except to say "show me concrete evidence that distinguishes this 'god' of yours from what I perceive simply as nature as it is". You cannot. You will now proceed to make more assertions of certainty one way or the other. Fools.
The best and wisest approach is to use your native powers of observation and reason and quit constructing anthropomorphic overlays for the natural world that do nothing more than provide shallow comfort and a false sense of certainty. In other words - grow up. Accept that there may indeed be a god (or gods) but that you have no current reason to invest such an idea with any more effort than you do the idea of the possibility of intelligent aliens or Santa Claus.
Clearly there are aspects of the universe that we do not understand, and may never understand. This is the worst possible reason to use as a justification for the assertion of god(s). It leaves you no better than a cowering savage in the night.
I say "there is no god" and you say "Oh yes there is" with just as much certainty. You mock my certainty, and I mock yours. Are we not both fools? You have no way to prove to me the existence of some god, who, if it exists, appears to manifest itself as what I think of as "nature" and I have no way to prove the non-existence of such an entity, except to say "show me concrete evidence that distinguishes this 'god' of yours from what I perceive simply as nature as it is". You cannot. You will now proceed to make more assertions of certainty one way or the other. Fools.
The best and wisest approach is to use your native powers of observation and reason and quit constructing anthropomorphic overlays for the natural world that do nothing more than provide shallow comfort and a false sense of certainty. In other words - grow up. Accept that there may indeed be a god (or gods) but that you have no current reason to invest such an idea with any more effort than you do the idea of the possibility of intelligent aliens or Santa Claus.
Clearly there are aspects of the universe that we do not understand, and may never understand. This is the worst possible reason to use as a justification for the assertion of god(s). It leaves you no better than a cowering savage in the night.
Just like the gods of religions, the laws of physics are these invisible magical things that make everything work. Theists ask what created the laws, and atheists ask what created God.
If they would realize that both are fantasy, nothing, they would realize that nothing needed to create them.
To find the answers you have to go deep enough, zoom deep enough... and when you do that, you can always only end up with the same thing: nothing. And between nothing and everything, there is infinite something that helps us create everything and be the mini-gods that we are.
If they would realize that both are fantasy, nothing, they would realize that nothing needed to create them.
To find the answers you have to go deep enough, zoom deep enough... and when you do that, you can always only end up with the same thing: nothing. And between nothing and everything, there is infinite something that helps us create everything and be the mini-gods that we are.
before we go any further, is this an argument for or against the ebb and flow of scientific theories?
no
lol
you are a greater fool.
here is why
to assert that a divine God does not exist requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience). To be situated in this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all parts of the universe and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, for an atheist's claim to be certain one is required to possess godlike qualities. Obviously, our limited nature falls short of these exceptional abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore not capable of being justified. The atheist's attempt to assert a universal negative is self-defeating .
we find that behind all exceptional claims their are exceptional qualifications - if you don't meet those qualifications, who's fault is it?
if a person doesn't want to learn from a person who knows (in this case a saintly person), what can be done?
actually the best and wisest way to approach any claim of knowledge is to approach someone who knows - at least thats why people commonly go to university to pursue their interests
how do you know that god is an anthropomorphic overlay?
you are not going to some length to fashion your own elaborate overlays on nature to satisfy the simple human need to have an "answer" for this or that are you?
another powerful assertion on the ultimate substance of reality - all you need now are premises
in the case of god however you have persons making claims of direct perception (ie saintly persons) and also methods to attain such a state (standards of behaviour in scripture etc) - are there parallels with santa claus and aliens?
therefore you find that the credible assertions of god's existence rest not on supposition of speculators but the direct perception of persons established in knowledge
lol - I think I have seen quite a few of those guys in Tokyo
superluminal said:
LG - this is exactly why you are so keen on appeals to authority: you would rather rely on the authority than your own observations and reason.
If you rely on the authority than your own reason then you will never see outside the boundaries of what you are taught - and you will effectively remain brainwashed - or at least intellectually dulled.
Think for yourself.
Assess your observations yourself - without reliance on someone else interpreting them for you - or you will forever be a sheep.
LG is hopeless. He says I assert there is no god, but I did no such thing. Apparently he can't read. And his entire line of "reasoning" rests on appeals to authority and the idea that proper "training" somehow reveals god, or electrons, or whatever (we've had this idiotic debate a gazillion times).
The only thing you really need to know about LG and his ilk is that they like their superstitions and the feelings (false) of "divine" mystery they lend to a universe they otherwise have zero hope of comprehending.
It's a shame really. Is there a god? Is there not a god? As the buddhists would say, "mu!" or un-ask the question. It's a really silly question if you just think about it a tiny bit. At least when taken beyond idle chit-chat.
Howdy!
Good post. My question to you is do you think there is a difference between what Christian Mystics are perceving when they claim to have direct perception of God that is in all things and what BUddhists claim to be perceving when they perceive the Buddha-nature in all things?
Point being (in my mind) that people that claim to have these experiences (of knowing god, or becoming enlightend) claim to be directly observing an aspect of reality that we are normally not aware of. To me it seems somewhat naive to dismiss these claims simply because we have not had these direct observational insights.
How can they observe what others cannot? If it is observable, then we should all be able to observe it. If it is observable, then it is testable and can be measured.
Their claims, therefore, are easy to dismiss.
I guarantee you that this 'enlightenment' is universal. Religiously inclined people will call it a religious experience and proof of god, and atheists will call it reverence of nature.
It's an experience that can be interpreted in many ways, and for religious people to take it as their own as proof of god is sheer arrogance.
grover,
I am in general agreement with KennyJC. All of the subjective experience in the universe means nothing to me from an evidentiary or proof point of view. It is indeed naive to simply dismiss such a phenomenon as the supposed "perceptions" of mystics. This has been looked into and our best analysis so far is that they are either:
Liars (charlatans), truly deluded, or people who (like KennyJC said) give far too much weight and interpretation to what the rest of us consider profound but ultimately internal experiences of enlightenment.
The leap to a universal "god" always did strike me as one of complete arrogance.
I am in general agreement with KennyJC. All of the subjective experience in the universe means nothing to me from an evidentiary or proof point of view. It is indeed naive to simply dismiss such a phenomenon as the supposed "perceptions" of mystics. This has been looked into and our best analysis so far is that they are either:
Liars (charlatans), truly deluded, or people who (like KennyJC said) give far too much weight and interpretation to what the rest of us consider profound but ultimately internal experiences of enlightenment.
The leap to a universal "god" always did strike me as one of complete arrogance.
If by universal you mena accesible to everyone, then yes I agree. But if you mean everyone is enlightened then I have to disagree with you.
It can be interpreted in different ways. But generally speaking only those who have experienced are really in a position to interpret it.
Lets leave the "god" thing alone for a minute since most peoples brains shut down the when they hear the word.
If a Buddhist claims to have an insight into the nature of reality how do we know that he isn't having a legitimate insight? How do we know we aren't just ignorant?
And one is supposed to believe that because of what? Why, because this fellow Sarkus says it is so.
Please understand, readers, that if you rely on the authority of this fellow Sarkus' pronouncements, then you will never see outside the boundaries of what this fellow Sarkus "teaches" you - and you will effectively remain brainwashed - or at least intellectually dulled.
so suppose you want to be a doctor - would you refuse to go to medical school and "appeal to authority"?
at a certain point you have to ask yourself whether the point of knowledge is to actually come to a conclusion or reinvent everything like a mad artist just so you can stick your signature on it.
as for the rest, I think nutter gave a concise overview
yes you did
“
I say "there is no god" and you say "Oh yes there is" with just as much certainty. "
:shrug:
if my rebuttals appear repetitive its because your arguments are too
one thing I like about tentative arguments is that they are so easy to refute with so little work
eg
The only thing you really need to know about Supe and his ilk is that they like their superstitions and the feelings (false) of "plausible uncertainty" they lend to a universe they otherwise have zero hope of comprehending.
Its not clear who the authority is that you are appealing to - the reasoning of buddhists or the reasoning of yourself
anyway, it doesn't make much difference, because it amounts to the same thing ....."I know that you cannot know god" .....which begs the question, how the hell do you know that?