Assumptions About God(s)

God is an assumption, so what's the problem? Belief in a god has no basis in fact, its an assumption, an irrationalization, illogical and unreasonable. I might as well believe there are creatures in the seventh dimension who control our minds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, that's what you assume ....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It sounds like you think all theists have arrived at their beliefs at random.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder if any or all believers are 100% certain god exists. If they are then why is it called belief?

The one thing I notice about most God believers is that a majority or in fact a preponderence of them call God a creator. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that if God does exist, that He created nothing?

Do we know enough facts for God to be an absolute certainty? If so, then what are they?

Unsubstantiated fact is not a reason to make an absolute statement about God's existence. Therefore believers must assume God exists. All along my mantra has been God is in absentia. He may be real but there is nothing to suggest He has ever been here, nothing. This makes religion a total waste. If we know nothing about something then it doesn't make sense to talk about its attributes or whatever. But it is such talk that is mesmerizing.

 

It still sounds like you think all theists have arrived at their beliefs randomly.

 

not at all

just like all atheists are not 100% certain god does not exist

that is why a theist sometimes becomes an atheist and vice versa

There is however a stage of theistic realization where one goes beyond the dualities of doubt

BG 5.25 Those who are beyond the dualities that arise from doubts, whose minds are engaged within, who are always busy working for the welfare of all living beings, and who are free from all sins achieve liberation in the Supreme.

SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

etc etc

atheism cannot lay claim to a position of being free from doubt

I guess one could consider that, if they were looking for creative ideas to diminish the role of god in the universe (a seemingly great preoccupation with atheists ...)

who is the "we"?
atheists?

no question of being certain about anything without proper application - for instance you could not be certain that honey is sweet unless you placed it in your mouth.

much like unapplied application is no grounds for dismissing a claim

In the beginning, yes.

Much like in the beginning one must assume that honey is a food stuff before coming to be certain of any of its qualities for which it is famous for.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

perhaps for one who refrains from applying normative descriptions in scripture

that's why not much value is placed on an atheists understanding of god

mesmerizing?

 

I believe the universe is teeming with life. I have no proof of this but there is one thing I am certain of, there is life in the universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume life exists elsewhere. That is the fundamental difference LG, I believe in something I can't prove as of yet but I can extrapolate from a known existent quantity. In God belief there is no such luxury of knowing that a God exists with certainty and to assume He does is tantamount to a dream.

I agree entirely. All I can say is that without any evidence to prove otherwise it is more reasonable to choose atheism. Actually I only choose to be atheist for the sake of argument. Atheist being the term most popular for someone like myself. Call me apatheist because I don't really care if God exists or not. If He exists then big deal. I don't need to go any further.

You can't be certain God is even here let alone know all about Him or think you've had some sort of magical epiphany on what God is, what He's all about or how we as lowly human beings have to revere Him. I hate to break it to you but I know as much about God as you do.

 

This is an interesting claim, but you need to support it.

Some examples...

Epicurus felt such a being, being perfect and beyond any possible want, need or care, could never interact with mortals in any way.

The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it.

Why do we have no way of knowing?

 

Once again, I don't need to support it. It is the claim of knowing that needs to be supported.
1111

 

Please substantiate this statement with a reference to the Pali Canon.

 

You do need to support it, but it seems there is some misunderstanding about what exactly you need to support.

You said:

What you need to support is why it follows that "we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil" if "there is a god".

You aren't asked to support whether G/god exists.

You are asked to support why it is impossible to know G/god.

Mind you, theists usually take a completely different position: they usually say that it is possible to know God.

You, on the other hand, are saying that it is impossible to know G/god. This is the claim you need to support.

 

So you are omniscient?

Some decency would do you no harm, you know.

 

:shrug::wtf:

There's no pleasing an expert.

 

Psychotic episode
“

Why?
Because you assume there is no valid experience of god (like there is a valid experience of life)?
What if one never had a valid experience of life? (like they lived in a dark cave with a big rock in front of the entrance)?

And once again, evidence is contingent on experience. IF a person chooses not to remove the rock of their cave like existence, then their experiences are severely diminished

When I was an atheist I think I was a better apatheist. Back then, the notion of even discussing issues of god (much less wasting time on a religious subforum) would seem totally ludicrous to me

Experience dictates different levels of comprehension.
If this wasn't true, there would be no need to undergo the experience of university in order to secure professional qualifications

 

No. I'm not going to reread the discourses to find you an exact quote. Feel free to look up the exact passage if you care to, I’d start in the the middle length discourses, here is a summation:

We are told that when Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha made a few statements about the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views are summarized as below:

1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for anyone to practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stop all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

I believe the point I'm thinking of is in #7 when he goes on about why it is "all speculation and vain talk" when discussing god, but it could be else where all together. I might note a number of these parallel Epicurus' conclusions about god.

 

You should.

You said:

One cannot simply make claims about what the Buddha - or anyone - has said, without also providing exact reference to source texts.

If one just goes "The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that" without backing up one's statements with scriptural reference, one is perpetuating hearsay.

 

“ Originally Posted by swarm
The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it. ”

Which Buddha???

Absolutely! Obviously, hearsay isn't evidence. Proof requires scripture!
1111

 

And yet people do all the time in informal discussions such as this. You obviously need help with the concept of paraphrasing.

Buddhists texts are just hearsay to begin with. Its at the front of every sutta "Thus I have heard..."

That's why Buddhism is not about the suttas. Its about knowing who you are. Having a practice. Gaining insight, morality and focus.

 

Cave dwellers could extrapolate the known quantity....that there are other caves with big rocks just like the one they're in. They could imagine a heaven beyond the rock with a god existing in what would be their outer space. They could explore outer space, the area beyond the cave, and they would not find god(sound familiar). I think you need a valid life experience real bad LG.

But their beliefs remain intact. Beliefs may evolve from one form to another(again, sound familiar) until that rock is removed. It will take someone anti-establishment to start the the transition to a new reality, someone who risks personal indictment but unafraid to challenge that what he/she believes is the truth about life. And what do you know!!! there is another cave, another world, no god's but a reality nonetheless. One that can actually be experienced.

Yep. Not caring implies no discussion. I am more against people claiming evidence of God, especially the spiritual claims. I'm more intersted in how the mind works so I wade in. Fun too.

Overblown! I've been places where my life was dependent on people with no university degree, no high school diploma or any formal classroom education whatsoever.

 

University degrees are extremely overvalued.
1111