Why do we need a God?

[lightgigantic]

Wow - in this one sentence you say there is a "need for God"... and then immediately offer an alternative which thus negates the "need for God". Just a stunning line of self-contradiction all in a single sentence.

sure

Hence it becomes either "we have a need for god" or "we don't have a need for anything except to have no ego" (so we have a need for nothing since there is no "we" so to speak)

And your comment further suggests to me that God is merely a conception, a tool if you will, used to assist in alleviating any anxiety one may be suffering in their material existence.

So you would expect an explanation on why we need god to be bereft of any tool-like explanations on the role god plays in fulfilling our needs?
And that descriptions of how "we don't need an ego" are not conceptions?
(Frankly I don't know how one could say : "Tell me more about how you don't need an ego" without venturing into the highly cerebral)

And if not God then some other idea.

i am simply presenting the basic theoretical outline of both - its a whole different kettle of fish if one wants to start talking about whether an idea is doable or not

And it does this by stimulating material patterns in the material brain, giving rise to material effects.

So your initial response to problems in this world is to go stimulate your material brain?

Yep - we all need God... or something that is not God... or we don't.

Meanwhile your molars rot ...
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

We can't make something what it already is.
No, it's inevitable that we will all cease to exist.

its not just us its the things we are attached to - hence the indubitable problem of (material) existence is attachment to things taht will shortly cease to exist.

You can try and ply that one simply has to not be attached to things but you have to do way, way way way more work than simply pretend its the consequence of a mature outlook to life.

:shrug:
You've lost me with this strawman, I'm afraid.
I have not mentioned anywhere about deciding not to get attached.
Perhaps if you indicate where you think I've said this, or implied this, then I can correct your misunderstanding.
I am referring to the inevitability of mortality.
Not sure what you're referring to, to be honest.
Who said it does??? Life has conflicts because that's what life does. We create problems for ourselves, sure, but those are problems we create, not problems with material existence.

and lo and behold, what sort of existence do we have?

You seem to think material existence itself is a problem that requires a solution, yet a lifeless universe has no problems that I can fathom.


Can you?
If you can answer what problems such a universe has then perhaps I could understand your position better with regard material existence.

So death of all conscious life forms solves all problems.
Brilliant

 

[lightgigantic]

No, quite the opposite. The senses are all one needs (if you are tired sleep, if hungry eat) if the mind is free from it's endless seeking. It's not the senses that make us suffer, it's the illusory need for something other.

the problem is that the mind doesn't deliver demands to the senses that are doable - hence the duplicity of human nature arises .. or even dogs for that matter since conflict in fulfilling the mind's desires is the constant companion of all living entities

IOW eastern thought on the subject and jesus's teachings about the kingdom of god or even buddhist notions of surmounting the ego are most certainly not about "If you are tired then sleep " or "if you are hungry then eat".

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know about Jesus, but Zen is very much about that. All this seeking is for the student, the novice, the sincere and persevering monk. The end of seeking is a refocus on the immediate.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know about Jesus, but Zen is very much about that. All this seeking is for the student, the novice, the sincere and persevering monk. The end of seeking is a refocus on the immediate.

And when those immediate desires are not achievable what do you have?
conflict?

 

[spidergoat]

I said nothing of desire. Desire is at the root of suffering.

 

[lightgigantic]

I said nothing of desire. Desire is at the root of suffering.

which brings us back to the notion of "ego is the root of all evil" since even pursuing what is merely immediately required can give rise to incredible suffering

IOW we are back to the two options of either accepting a diminished ego or a transcendental consciousness as a solution to suffering in the material world
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

No, quite the opposite. The senses are all one needs (if you are tired sleep, if hungry eat) if the mind is free from it's endless seeking. It's not the senses that make us suffer, it's the illusory need for something other.

spidergoat : I said nothing of desire. Desire is at the root of suffering.

Can the senses operate without desire?

 

[wynn]

So death of all conscious life forms solves all problems.
Brilliant

Some people fret when at the mention of atheism, someone brings up Stalin as an example.
But Stalin really is a good example of atheism: his policy of No man, no problem is precisely what atheists are arguing for.

 

[wynn]

A more immediate and obvious problem of our own making is if we do not care for them properly... we eat corrosive foods, don't brush, don't get regular check ups etc. But it is material problem with material solution.

So, what are your solutions to some very material problems connected to teeth, for example:

1. What to think of when the dentist is drilling into your teeth?
Those are some of the longest five minutes in your life, and you have to think of something in that ever so stressful time.

2. How to talk yourself out of eating (too much) sweets?
Craving sweets can be very intense. How do you talk yourself out it, or other things you can do to get yourself not to eat (too much) sweets? What if all that well-meaning medical advice on the harmfulness of eating sweets just doesn't convince you, at least not in the heat of the moment?

And I'm not familiar with eHow articles?

E-How along with WikiHow and other similar sites are examples of a specific way of problem-solving.
Read some articles, and if after a while, they don't start to seem odd to you, then I don't know what to say ...

 

[Chipz]

I said nothing of desire. Desire is at the root of suffering.

Tell that to Africa, or the rest of the world before 1950.

 

[wynn]

I don't have that bias, since I started with Buddhism.

Of course you don't have that bias.

 

[wynn]

tamas - the essential ingredient of material existence.

But why isn't everyone the same? We're all in material existence, aren't we?

Why do some people see birth, aging, illness and death - and think there must be more to life than this?

 

[Sarkus]

Hence it becomes either "we have a need for god" or "we don't have a need for anything except to have no ego" (so we have a need for nothing since there is no "we" so to speak)

And you continue to offer the alternative that renders the moot any "need" for God.
"You need A! But B works as well... so actually you don't need A."

So you would expect an explanation on why we need god to be bereft of any tool-like explanations on the role god plays in fulfilling our needs?

Not at all, but if your explanation of why you need a screw-driver can also be fulfilled by the use of a hammer it renders the "need" for a screwdriver somewhat impotent.

And that descriptions of how "we don't need an ego" are not conceptions?

Sure they are, but they are godless, hence no need for God. I.e. pushing them as viable alternatives renders the "need" for God impotent.
i.e. you are going down a line of argument that, by your own admission, can be achieved without recourse to God.
And your line of argument still relegates "God" merely to one of such concepts, what to speak of the reality of that concept.

i am simply presenting the basic theoretical outline of both - its a whole different kettle of fish if one wants to start talking about whether an idea is doable or not

"You need a screwdriver... but you could also use a hammer."
"So why do we need a screwdriver?"
"Oh, that's because a hammer doesn't work!"
:shrug:
Your self-contradiction continues to astound.

So your initial response to problems in this world is to go stimulate your material brain?

Have you ever tried to do anything without your brain being stimulated? Try breathing on your own without doing so. Try typing, thinking, eating, sleeping... trying simply being alive without it.
I am saying that ANY action at all that we undertake IS a material stimulation of the brain.

Meanwhile your molars rot ...

Which is a material problem with a material solution, so I really can't see the purpose of this line of comment.

its not just us its the things we are attached to - hence the indubitable problem of (material) existence is attachment to things taht will shortly cease to exist.

And why is this a problem? You keep harping on that it is, yet I fail to see it.

You can try and ply that one simply has to not be attached to things but you have to do way, way way way more work than simply pretend its the consequence of a mature outlook to life.

Why should I try and ply something that I don't hold to? Another strawman, LG??
I am attached to material things that will cease to exist. Heck, I AM a material thing that will cease to exist.

and lo and behold, what sort of existence do we have?

Not too bad at all, thanks. I get a chance to experience things, to love, to lose, to laugh, to cry, to be amazed, to be shocked, to be happy and to be sad. I get hopefully twice as long to live as my ancient ancestors.
For what is "God" needed?

So death of all conscious life forms solves all problems.

It wouldn't solve, but it would remove them for sure.
But you deliberately miss the point... that if a universe devoid of life has no "problems" that you can identify then the issue is clearly NOT with material existence per se (a universe devoid of life IS part of material existence) but with one element of material existence.
Sure, there are things that we interpret as problems, but these are material in nature and material in solution... even if cerebral.
Furthermore, the use of a concept to achieve a solution does not make the concept necessarily real.
So really you're arguing down the line of "Why do we need a concept of God?"

 

[wynn]

Heck, I AM a material thing that will cease to exist.

Oh. Have you read Quine's "Two dogmas of empricism"?

 

[wynn]

But you deliberately miss the point... that if a universe devoid of life has no "problems" that you can identify then the issue is clearly NOT with material existence per se (a universe devoid of life IS part of material existence) but with one element of material existence.

Yup, no man, no problem, and no woman, no cry!

 

[Sarkus]

Oh. Have you read Quine's "Two dogmas of empricism"?

I've heard of it, but am not familiar with it.

Yup, no man, no problem, and no woman, no cry!

I am merely pointing out one of LG's fallacies - that what may apply to a part does not necessarily hold for the whole.

 

[wynn]

I am merely pointing out one of LG's fallacies - that what may apply to a part does not necessarily hold for the whole.

LG's reasoning is fallacious only if we take for granted that the material is all there is to existence.

Although if the material is all there is to existence, you still need to explain how some people fall into the illusion or delusion that there should be more to life than the material.

 

[Sarkus]

LG's reasoning is fallacious only if we take for granted that the material is all there is to existence.

Whether we take that for granted or not is irrelevant to the fallacy I pointed out: it is still fallacious to apply a perceived property of a part to the whole.

Although if the material is all there is to existence, you still need to explain how some people fall into the illusion or delusion that there should be more to life than the material.

It's not delusion (at least in the way I understand delusion), as there would be no evidence to the contrary.
Further, the demand for an immediate explanation opens you up to accepting a God of the gaps.
It should be sufficient to say "I/we don't yet know"... but I am sure there is some psychological difference between such people... no two brains work in precisely the same way, even if they appear to at the gross level.
You may as well ask "Why are some people ambitious and others not?" or "Why are some people more content with their own company and others more content with others?"

 

[wynn]

Whether we take that for granted or not is irrelevant to the fallacy I pointed out: it is still fallacious to apply a perceived property of a part to the whole.

In that case, you yourself are fallaciously taking for granted that humans are parts of the material universe, and that all that there is to a human is within the material universe.

Should it not be sufficient to say "I don't know"?

Further, the demand for an immediate explanation opens you up to accepting a God of the gaps.
It should be sufficient to say "I/we don't yet know"... but I am sure there is some psychological difference between such people... no two brains work in precisely the same way, even if they appear to at the gross level.

Ever tried to go about your life, thinking, "Oh, but I don't know"?