Why is there so much unjust suffering in this world despite God?

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

(insert analogy about the high school drop out perceiving the elctron and the common system trying to directly perceive th epresident)

Ha ha. But actuallly, that was legitimately funny.

Thats the point - it doesn't occupy infinity - linear time is a special construct to giv e the facility of illusion for the living entity - its a prerequisite for an eternal entity to be able to entertain the notion of temporality

If eternity did not have a concept of time, neither God, nor the "living entity" could act. Similarly, the "living entity" could not have seperated from God.

Yes, as far as life in the material world goes - but of course in the state of illusion its not expected that one can perceive that (if they could it wouldn't be illusion)

What proof can you offer this? Considering it invalidates every experience we have, it deserves some monumental proof.

Its as inevitable as a person taking another breath despite trying to hold it

Why?

and relegating the experience of evil to a realm that bears no consequences doesn't fulfill this requirement to have a zero tolerance for evil?

Is it a destruction? No.

Considering that such an arrangemnet also provides the opportunity for the living entity to possess and express free will it seems to fulfill all needs - as I said before - people do not understand what it properly means to say that god is omnipotent - you cannot determine the extent of gods potencies by an examination of the temporal world, since the entire temporal world and its necessary laws are a small fragment of god's capacity - that is why god, things related to god and the process for coming to understand god are called "transcendental"

And yet still there is evil that spits in the face of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince james

“ (insert analogy about the high school drop out perceiving the elctron and the common system trying to directly perceive th epresident) ”

Ha ha. But actuallly, that was legitimately funny.

If you thought that was funny check out this

“ Thats the point - it doesn't occupy infinity - linear time is a special construct to giv e the facility of illusion for the living entity - its a prerequisite for an eternal entity to be able to entertain the notion of temporality ”

If eternity did not have a concept of time, neither God, nor the "living entity" could act. Similarly, the "living entity" could not have seperated from God.

Thats right -it is technically impossible for the living entity to be seperated from god - such an opportunity is granted through the medium of illusion, the length and breadth of which is made up of linear time

“ Yes, as far as life in the material world goes - but of course in the state of illusion its not expected that one can perceive that (if they could it wouldn't be illusion) ”

What proof can you offer this? Considering it invalidates every experience we have, it deserves some monumental proof.

How can a person in illusion determine if they are in illusion? I think the screen play of matrix was even dependant on the main character coming in to contact with a person who was not in illusion.

“ Its as inevitable as a person taking another breath despite trying to hold it ”

Why?

Just as a person inevitably breaths (at least for as long as they have the status of "person"), the living entity eventually gets reinstated in the eternal position since there is nothing in the material world which can occupy them for an eternity

“ and relegating the experience of evil to a realm that bears no consequences doesn't fulfill this requirement to have a zero tolerance for evil? ”

Is it a destruction? No.

Why do you advocate that it is necessary for god to destroy something that bears no consequence?

“ Considering that such an arrangemnet also provides the opportunity for the living entity to possess and express free will it seems to fulfill all needs - as I said before - people do not understand what it properly means to say that god is omnipotent - you cannot determine the extent of gods potencies by an examination of the temporal world, since the entire temporal world and its necessary laws are a small fragment of god's capacity - that is why god, things related to god and the process for coming to understand god are called "transcendental" ”

And yet still there is evil that spits in the face of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.

no - not even that - spitting would be a consequence

 

[spamandham]

It seems obvous that people are mostly superficially religious or outright irreligious, which is what life in the material world is specifically addressing

so your point is what? that if people were truly religious god would prevent/stop unjust suffering? Why would a god give a shit about whether or not people are religious, or is the point that the religion itself is what somehow ends all unjust suffering?

Is having functional limbs an automatic qualification for blissful life? Is having dysfunctional limbs an automatic qualification for misery?

It doesn't matter whether or not it is possible to have a blissful life without limbs. I seriously doubt anyone has a blissful life. Most people have moments of happiness, moments of tradgedy, etc.

In case you haven't noticed, happiness and distress visits everyone equally - if you think you can alter that with material facility you are deluded.

I haven't noticed they visit everyone equally, and I serously doubt you have either. Sure, almost everyone has some happiness and some distress, but certainly not in equal proportions. Studies prove that people with good health, and who do not suffer from material want really are happier. That doesn't imply it's impossible to be happy without these, but it proves that it helps.

 

[VitalOne]

Have you always been able to talk shit, or did it take practice?

why is it shit? there is no suffering in reality only in fiction

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
It seems obvous that people are mostly superficially religious or outright irreligious, which is what life in the material world is specifically addressing ”

so your point is what? that if people were truly religious god would prevent/stop unjust suffering? Why would a god give a shit about whether or not people are religious, or is the point that the religion itself is what somehow ends all unjust suffering?

That's more or less the idea - thou shall not steal

If you work with the proper defintion of religion it would make sense (come from the latin which means "to connect or bond" - connect to what?)
Of course if you use religion in a contemporary sense of something that has economical/political implications I see your point

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Is having functional limbs an automatic qualification for blissful life? Is having dysfunctional limbs an automatic qualification for misery? ”

It doesn't matter whether or not it is possible to have a blissful life without limbs. I seriously doubt anyone has a blissful life. Most people have moments of happiness, moments of tradgedy, etc.

Then to get back to your original example of amputees, what purpose would god be serving by re-establishing the functionality of their limbs (probably make people even more foolhardy, "Hey don't worry god will just come down and stick them on - pass the chainsaw and you come around through the back where the girls ran into")

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In case you haven't noticed, happiness and distress visits everyone equally - if you think you can alter that with material facility you are deluded. ”

I haven't noticed they visit everyone equally, and I serously doubt you have either. Sure, almost everyone has some happiness and some distress, but certainly not in equal proportions.

thats because everyone's activities are not equal - but if you think there is one station in life (eg amputee) that grants instant unresolvable life long distress and another station in life (multi billion aire) that grants insatiable adventures into the realm of pleasure you are mistaken

Studies prove that people with good health, and who do not suffer from material want really are happier.

And I guess you will say it is a mere conincidence that religion advocates the same out look?

That doesn't imply it's impossible to be happy without these, but it proves that it helps.

But at the end of the day there is nothing you can do to avoid unhappiness or attain happiness (what people frequently pursue in the name of happiness often turns out to be unhappiness)

 

[spamandham]

If you work with the proper defintion of religion it would make sense (come from the latin which means "to connect or bond" - connect to what?)

It still doesn't make sense. Definitions do not end injustice. These are things we observe directly, and even if everyone was "truly" religious, do you contend that nature itself would not still dole out unjust suffering?

Then to get back to your original example of amputees, what purpose would god be serving by re-establishing the functionality of their limbs (probably make people even more foolhardy, "Hey don't worry god will just come down and stick them on - pass the chainsaw and you come around through the back where the girls ran into")

If restoring limbs serves no purpose, then having them in the first place also serves no purpose. God seems to have seen fit to equip us with useless apendages that do not serve to give us a life of bliss (which you seem to imply is his purpose for our lives).

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

If you work with the proper defintion of religion it would make sense (come from the latin which means "to connect or bond" - connect to what?) ”

It still doesn't make sense. Definitions do not end injustice. These are things we observe directly,

see what directly? the results of impious activity? I don't think so .... just because you don't see it doesn't mean anything (particularly since the whole notion of retribution for activity operates on a very subtle level)

and even if everyone was "truly" religious, do you contend that nature itself would not still dole out unjust suffering?

If a person is perfectly religious they are admitted to the spiritual realm which operates on alternative principles - as long as one is in the material world one should hope for the best and plan for the worst, after all it is the abod e of suffering - the only solution is to not act in a way that one is obliged to spend more time than what is necessary here (and in case you are curious suicide is an impious acivity - the only solution is surrender to god, iniatially characterized by being receptive to scripture)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Then to get back to your original example of amputees, what purpose would god be serving by re-establishing the functionality of their limbs (probably make people even more foolhardy, "Hey don't worry god will just come down and stick them on - pass the chainsaw and you come around through the back where the girls ran into") ”

If restoring limbs serves no purpose, then having them in the first place also serves no purpose. God seems to have seen fit to equip us with useless apendages that do not serve to give us a life of bliss (which you seem to imply is his purpose for our lives).

Your original issue was that having the limbs of amputees mended by god would greatly reshape the face of suffering on this planet - my point was that it doesn't appear to be the case since they would still be engaged in rebelling against god (like plenty of other people with fully functional limbs), and would probably become even more rebellious if their limbs were indestructable

 

[spamandham]

If a person is perfectly religious they are admitted to the spiritual realm which operates on alternative principles - as long as one is in the material world one should hope for the best and plan for the worst, after all it is the abod e of suffering - the only solution is to not act in a way that one is obliged to spend more time than what is necessary here (and in case you are curious suicide is an impious acivity - the only solution is surrender to god, iniatially characterized by being receptive to scripture)

The other solution is what I originally suggested. God doesn't exist. Your description of life sounds horrible. It sounds like the ideal would be simply to die as quickly as possible. Nuclear war would be virtuous from this perspective. It saddens me to think people actually believe what you are saying.

Your original issue was that having the limbs of amputees mended by god would greatly reshape the face of suffering on this planet - my point was that it doesn't appear to be the case since they would still be engaged in rebelling against god (like plenty of other people with fully functional limbs), and would probably become even more rebellious if their limbs were indestructable

My point was not that healing limbs would greatly reshape the planet. My point was that there is suffering that serves no clear purpose, and god does not intervene. If it somehow serves his purposes and that's why he does nothing to ease suffering here, then he's just an ordinary selfish jerk.

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

If a person is perfectly religious they are admitted to the spiritual realm which operates on alternative principles - as long as one is in the material world one should hope for the best and plan for the worst, after all it is the abod e of suffering - the only solution is to not act in a way that one is obliged to spend more time than what is necessary here (and in case you are curious suicide is an impious acivity - the only solution is surrender to god, iniatially characterized by being receptive to scripture) ”

The other solution is what I originally suggested. God doesn't exist.

How do you know god doesn't exist?

Your description of life sounds horrible.

any description about god sounds horrible to an atheist, particularly descriptions that suggest the perfection of life is to surrender to god

It sounds like the ideal would be simply to die as quickly as possible. Nuclear war would be virtuous from this perspective. It saddens me to think people actually believe what you are saying.

If you had read the reply you could see how premature death is impious - you assume that entering th eternal realm is as simple as dying (which everyone does anyway) if it was true religiou slife wouldn't warrant an endeavour - obviously we are living to learn something, and until we get it right we will continue to live (and continue to die and then continue to live and then continue to die etc etc)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Your original issue was that having the limbs of amputees mended by god would greatly reshape the face of suffering on this planet - my point was that it doesn't appear to be the case since they would still be engaged in rebelling against god (like plenty of other people with fully functional limbs), and would probably become even more rebellious if their limbs were indestructable ”

My point was not that healing limbs would greatly reshape the planet. My point was that there is suffering that serves no clear purpose, and god does not intervene.

But you haven't exactly established why god should intervene because with or without an arm life goes on in the same patterns - on the contrary if god did magically intervene inthe case of amputees it would probably just make people more foolhardy and arrogant than what they are already.

If it somehow serves his purposes and that's why he does nothing to ease suffering here, then he's just an ordinary selfish jerk.

If you are suffering it is because you don't how to enjoy - in other words you disobey scriptural instructions on how to lead an enjoyable life - who's fault is that?

 

[spamandham]

How do you know god doesn't exist?

I don't "know" it, I judge it based on my knowledge of the history of ancient religion, philosophical investigation, and modern concepts of gods. But be honest, your interest is in demonstrating that YOUR concept of god exists, not just some abstract "god" thingy.

any description about god sounds horrible to an atheist, particularly descriptions that suggest the perfection of life is to surrender to god

I clearly stated that I thought your description of LIFE was horrible, not god. Why do you feel the need to throw up a strawman? Is it because you know I'm right that your description of life sounds horrible and you simply don't want to admit it?

But you haven't exactly established why god should intervene because with or without an arm life goes on in the same patterns

Well, I suppose I'm just more compassionate than your god is. If it were within my power, I would heal the amputees (and everyone else) simply because it would reduce their suffering, and for no other reason. Whether or not they would use their new limbs for arrogant and foolish purposes is up to them.

You're really not doing a very good job of spreading your meme.

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

How do you know god doesn't exist? ”

I don't "know" it, I judge it based on my knowledge of the history of ancient religion, philosophical investigation, and modern concepts of gods. But be honest, your interest is in demonstrating that YOUR concept of god exists, not just some abstract "god" thingy.

so in other words you want to back down from your ideas of a solution?

The other solution is what I originally suggested. God doesn't exist.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
any description about god sounds horrible to an atheist, particularly descriptions that suggest the perfection of life is to surrender to god ”

I clearly stated that I thought your description of LIFE was horrible, not god.

I see, and the fact that you are an atheist is just a coincidence huh?

Why do you feel the need to throw up a strawman?

Why do you feel the need to allude to a strawman to cover your value system?

Is it because you know I'm right that your description of life sounds horrible and you simply don't want to admit it?

No - as I already explained - you are an atheist and atheists tend to have an incompatable value system with a theist

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But you haven't exactly established why god should intervene because with or without an arm life goes on in the same patterns ”

Well, I suppose I'm just more compassionate than your god is. If it were within my power, I would heal the amputees (and everyone else) simply because it would reduce their suffering, and for no other reason. Whether or not they would use their new limbs for arrogant and foolish purposes is up to them.

So by god's mercy a person can come to the platform of accepting responsibility for their activites and approach life with equanimity that can lead to reinstatement to the eternal realm - and by your mercy one could be a complete fool for eternity in a temporal abode of misery - probably another good reason why you are not god .....

You're really not doing a very good job of spreading your meme.

on the contrary I determine its validity and success by the degree that it agitates atheists

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

Thats right -it is technically impossible for the living entity to be seperated from god - such an opportunity is granted through the medium of illusion, the length and breadth of which is made up of linear time

The medium of illusion could not be instituted for that entity, as that requires a time when the entity was not in illusion and a time after which it was no longer within it. Similarly, it could not desire, as thoughts require time.

How can a person in illusion determine if they are in illusion? I think the screen play of matrix was even dependant on the main character coming in to contact with a person who was not in illusion.

Indeed, but at least Morpheus offered Neo a pill. What do you offer us to show us this?

Just as a person inevitably breaths (at least for as long as they have the status of "person"), the living entity eventually gets reinstated in the eternal position since there is nothing in the material world which can occupy them for an eternity

Is there not an infinite amount of things to do in the material world? And are we not ignorant of our past lives?

Why do you advocate that it is necessary for god to destroy something that bears no consequence?

Perfect goodness in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity cannot be accepted because it is an act of evil to not destroy evil. Therefore even allowing it to be "inconsequential" but to exist is to invalidate one's goodness.

 

[spamandham]

spamandham


so in other words you want to back down from your ideas of a solution?

The other solution is what I originally suggested. God doesn't exist.

No, I don't back down from it at all. You'll note that both the original suggestion and the reiterated suggestion are exactly that, suggestions. "god does not exist" is a possible explanation to these dilemmas, and also happens to be dirt simple. The fact that I judge it to be most likely is irrelevant.

If you prefer a more complicated explanation, your welcome to it, but it's then up to you to explain all these things in a comprehensible way according to your perspective, if you wish others to take you seriously.

I see, and the fact that you are an atheist is just a coincidence huh?

It's probbaly not coincidence. Maybe you just need to work on your delivery of (paraphrasing) "life is shit and it's best to die as quick as you can" to make it more appealing.

Why do you feel the need to allude to a strawman to cover your value system?

My value system has never entered the picture until just now, and I certainly am not ashamed of it. But since you ask, I value life. I love pleasure, and I wish these for others as well. My value system is rational self interest (i.e., long term self interest is also important). I consider anything else to be abject foolishness.

That asside, I alluded to a strawman, because you presented one! Why did you try to twist my words from "your description of life sounds horrible" to something about my perspective on god?

If you really believe life is for suffering and early death, then proudly proclaim it! You appear to be trying to weasle out of it.

Hey if it's just an ego thing, I can certainly appreciate that you don't want to admit I'm right, or something like that, but hopefully this discussion has helped to reinforce the cognitive dissonance you clearly are struggling with.

No - as I already explained - you are an atheist and atheists tend to have an incompatable value system with a theist

Ok, so just say "I value suffering and early death because I believe that's what life is all about according to my value system and you can't possibly understand because you're an atheist and we all know atheists are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of theists", and we can move on. We both know that's what you're thinking, so let's just put it on the table.

- probably another good reason why you are not god .....

How do you know I'm not god?

 

[funkstar]

Your original issue was that having the limbs of amputees mended by god would greatly reshape the face of suffering on this planet - my point was that it doesn't appear to be the case since they would still be engaged in rebelling against god (like plenty of other people with fully functional limbs), and would probably become even more rebellious if their limbs were indestructable

So your point is that people who lose limbs kind of deserve it because they rebel against god?

Bull. Shit. And a particularly nasty and uncaring attitude towards your fellow man I might say.

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

so in other words you want to back down from your ideas of a solution?

The other solution is what I originally suggested. God doesn't exist. ”

No, I don't back down from it at all. You'll note that both the original suggestion and the reiterated suggestion are exactly that, suggestions. "god does not exist"

"does not" is not a suggestion

is a possible explanation to these dilemmas, and also happens to be dirt simple. The fact that I judge it to be most likely is irrelevant.

and it doesn't worry you that you have no evidence that god doesn't exist?

If you prefer a more complicated explanation, your welcome to it, but it's then up to you to explain all these things in a comprehensible way according to your perspective, if you wish others to take you seriously.

not sure exactly what you are talking about here

I see, and the fact that you are an atheist is just a coincidence huh? ”

It's probbaly not coincidence. Maybe you just need to work on your delivery of (paraphrasing) "life is shit and it's best to die as quick as you can" to make it more appealing.

i wasn't aware that I gave a focus on dying ASAP - on the contrary I thought I placed an emphasis on gaining essential lessons in life to attain athe qualifcation for a higher state of existence (as opposed to being stuck in the mode of repeated birth and death in an atmosphere of embaressment and fear)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Why do you feel the need to allude to a strawman to cover your value system? ”

My value system has never entered the picture until just now, and I certainly am not ashamed of it. But since you ask, I value life. I love pleasure, and I wish these for others as well. My value system is rational self interest (i.e., long term self interest is also important). I consider anything else to be abject foolishness.

then there is the question of long term benefit (sreyas) and short term benefit (preyas) - enjoyment for the body, which has a predictable course, is preyas - in otherwords regardless whether one's temporary desires are fulfilled or not it all gets lost anyway (therefore you often find that what people pursue in the name of happiness in this world is often the casue of their greatest suffering)

That asside, I alluded to a strawman, because you presented one! Why did you try to twist my words from "your description of life sounds horrible" to something about my perspective on god?

From my side it appears that you alluded that surrender to god is a strawman for something - although in hindsight it appears that you are thinking I am talking about something else

You - “ Your description of life sounds horrible. ”

Me - any description about god sounds horrible to an atheist, particularly descriptions that suggest the perfection of life is to surrender to god

You - I clearly stated that I thought your description of LIFE was horrible, not god. Why do you feel the need to throw up a strawman? Is it because you know I'm right that your description of life sounds horrible and you simply don't want to admit it?

Me - Why do you feel the need to allude to a strawman to cover your value system?

I am not sure exactly where you got the idea from that i am advocating that the best option is life is to die early ? Maybe you could quote exactly where I alluded to it

If you really believe life is for suffering and early death, then proudly proclaim it! You appear to be trying to weasle out of it.

But I didn't advocate that - I think it was just some natural conclusion you came to as an atheist when I pressed the idea that this life is not the all in all and the supposed great reward sof this world are miserly, attained with great labour and all eventually lost.

Hey if it's just an ego thing, I can certainly appreciate that you don't want to admit I'm right, or something like that, but hopefully this discussion has helped to reinforce the cognitive dissonance you clearly are struggling with.

I think you are labouring under the idea that i said something abou the goal in life is to die early - which I am pretty sure I didn't say - maybe you can indicate exactly what passage you drew this signifigance from

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No - as I already explained - you are an atheist and atheists tend to have an incompatable value system with a theist ”

Ok, so just say "I value suffering and early death because I believe that's what life is all about according to my value system and you can't possibly understand because you're an atheist and we all know atheists are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of theists", and we can move on. We both know that's what you're thinking, so let's just put it on the table.

Once again - i don't think I said that

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
- probably another good reason why you are not god ..... ”

How do you know I'm not god?

the same way that a contemporary astronomer knows that epicycles don't play a role in universal management

 

[lightgigantic]

So your point is that people who lose limbs kind of deserve it because they rebel against god?

Bull. Shit. And a particularly nasty and uncaring attitude towards your fellow man I might say.

For a person who accepts this life as the all in all there are numerous unsolvable problems in the world to moan about

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

“ Thats right -it is technically impossible for the living entity to be seperated from god - such an opportunity is granted through the medium of illusion, the length and breadth of which is made up of linear time ”

The medium of illusion could not be instituted for that entity, as that requires a time when the entity was not in illusion and a time after which it was no longer within it. Similarly, it could not desire, as thoughts require time.

The problem is that you are stuck in the tail end of god's potency and are trying to determine the sequence of things at the front - just because the conditioned living entity operates out of linear time bears no correlation to the living entity liberated from material life - if it was possible to conceive of the nature of liberation by drawing on temporal evidences it wouldn't be described as transcendental

“ How can a person in illusion determine if they are in illusion? I think the screen play of matrix was even dependant on the main character coming in to contact with a person who was not in illusion. ”

Indeed, but at least Morpheus offered Neo a pill. What do you offer us to show us this?

He perceived a benefit because he accepted the process (he took the pill) - a person who does not accept the process (in anything, whether you are talking about theism or polio vaccinations) does not perceive th e benefit

“ Just as a person inevitably breaths (at least for as long as they have the status of "person"), the living entity eventually gets reinstated in the eternal position since there is nothing in the material world which can occupy them for an eternity ”

Is there not an infinite amount of things to do in the material world? And are we not ignorant of our past lives?

But there is nothing to sustain us because we are eternal by nature - just like have you ever wondered why toothpaste is constantly marketed as new and improved (after all how much technical advancement can be crammed in to toothpaste?) - obviously it is done because we find new and fresh things invigorating - the material world cannot offer a single thing that can fits this bill, hence it constantly operates out of the medium of illusion - there may appear to be an unlimted scope for variety, but it all amounts to the same thing.
As for our lives they can be progressive - whatever spiritual advancement one makes will remain with one eternally - so if one attains 2% advancement they start next life from 2% - it is never diminished (do you ever get the feeling that we are continuing with a discussion left over from a previous life )

“ Why do you advocate that it is necessary for god to destroy something that bears no consequence? ”

Perfect goodness in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity cannot be accepted because it is an act of evil to not destroy evil. Therefore even allowing it to be "inconsequential" but to exist is to invalidate one's goodness.

What is the nature of something that exists but bears no consequence?

 

[Sarkus]

If you work with the proper defintion of religion it would make sense (come from the latin which means "to connect or bond" - connect to what?)
Of course if you use religion in a contemporary sense of something that has economical/political implications I see your point

I must pull you up on this point....
The etymology of "religion" has been debated - and is still debated. Why are you arrogant enough to think that your definition is the "proper definition"?

The English word "religion" comes from the Latin "religio" - meaning conscientiousness or reverence.

"Religio" itself could have been derived from any number of sources:

Relegere (to re-read, or read again) - as thought by Cicero
Religare (to return to bondage, to bind again) - as thought by Lucretius, Lactancius and Tertullianus
Religere (to recover)- - as thought by St. Augustine (initially, although he then changed his opinion to Religare).
Res Legere (concerning a gathering) - as thought by others.

The "proper definition", if indeed one even exists, is NOT a closed matter.
To think otherwise is arrogance.

The modern usage of the word "religion" has elements of all of these sources. Noone will ever know for sure which is the "original" source - or whether it was a mixture.

 

[spamandham]

"does not" is not a suggestion

Certainly it is, when it's preceded by the words "suggested solution". You're diving into the deep end of the bullshit pool on this one.

and it doesn't worry you that you have no evidence that god doesn't exist?

Depedning on how you choose to define god, I may very well have evidence it doesn't exist. But even if I don't, it doesn't matter. It isn't important from my perspective that I be able to disprove things that are obviously myths. If it sounds crazy, and there's no reason to even suspect it might be true, I summarily dismiss it. I have high confidence you can not prove god exists, which means your belief is irrational. However, if you (or anyone else) were to succeed in demonstrating the existence of a god, what do you know, I'd become a theist at that moment.

i wasn't aware that I gave a focus on dying ASAP - on the contrary I thought I placed an emphasis on gaining essential lessons in life to attain athe qualifcation for a higher state of existence (as opposed to being stuck in the mode of repeated birth and death in an atmosphere of embaressment and fear)

When you mentioned not doing things that make you stick around here longer than necessary, it seemed to imply you were merely waiting for death. But I see you're talking about reincarnation instead. Have you not considered the possibility that this life is the only one you get?

the same way that a contemporary astronomer knows that epicycles don't play a role in universal management

You could simply admit that your claim I'm not god is merely a judgement on your part, and that your knowledge that I'm not god is the exact same type of knowledge I have that neither you nor anyone/anything else is god either.

If you are justified in saying I'm not god, I am equally justified in saying god doesn't exist based on essentially identical inferences.

 

[lightgigantic]

Spamandham

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
"does not" is not a suggestion ”

Certainly it is, when it's preceded by the words "suggested solution". You're diving into the deep end of the bullshit pool on this one.

If thats what you really want to say then you have to be consistant and avoid stepping over the line as below indicated in bold

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and it doesn't worry you that you have no evidence that god doesn't exist? ”

Depedning on how you choose to define god, I may very well have evidence it doesn't exist. But even if I don't, it doesn't matter. It isn't important from my perspective that I be able to disprove things that are obviously myths. If it sounds crazy, and there's no reason to even suspect it might be true,

All this is either bravado or alternatively you have evidence that god doesn't exist

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
i wasn't aware that I gave a focus on dying ASAP - on the contrary I thought I placed an emphasis on gaining essential lessons in life to attain athe qualifcation for a higher state of existence (as opposed to being stuck in the mode of repeated birth and death in an atmosphere of embaressment and fear) ”

When you mentioned not doing things that make you stick around here longer than necessary, it seemed to imply you were merely waiting for death. But I see you're talking about reincarnation instead. Have you not considered the possibility that this life is the only one you get?

Yes I have

Have you considered the opposite?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the same way that a contemporary astronomer knows that epicycles don't play a role in universal management ”

You could simply admit that your claim I'm not god is merely a judgement on your part,

A judgement based on what the term "god" actually means - perhaps you could say you are a god that is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc - which would kind of make you a measley god ....

and that your knowledge that I'm not god is the exact same type of knowledge I have that neither you nor anyone/anything else is god either.

At the moment we are at the stage of etmylogy, trying establish the nature of terminology - you can say you are god, and you may be correct, but your understanding what the word god means could be wrong

If you are justified in saying I'm not god, I am equally justified in saying god doesn't exist based on essentially identical inferences.

I didn't make up the term "god" - you on the other hand appear to have concocted the necessary requirements to qualify for that term - that is the difference