Why do we need a God?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 25, 2012.


Do we need [there to be] God?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Actually it doesn't.
    If it rendered it moot there would only be one viable alternative.

    Instead I present two (or arguably three if we want to factor in straight out ignorance., which i guess could easily function as an extra option for any list of viable alternatives on any subject you care to mention)
    Once again, if that was the case you would only see one option - instead you see two or three

    Why bias yourself to the "hammer"?

    I simply explained two things and you have suddenly gone on a tirade about how one option encompasses the other without really explaining the reasoning behind your selection (apart from it resonating with your values).

    Perhaps if the OP was "why do atheists need a god" your comments would be relevant but atm they are a bit out of place.
    Go back to the OP and you will see that it offers arguments for not needing god on the assumption that god exists.
    IOW I think you have lost track of this thread if you think its pertinent to atheists
    Both outlines are presented in the same conceptual manner.

    It's not clear what your point is.
    If notions of theory and application were non-different I think things would be quite whacky ...
    I have never encountered (nor have I known anyone - unless they are in to wearing tin foil hats or something ) who when encountering a problem, like say the inevitability of attachment to something, thinks "I got to get my brain stimulated".

    Rather they usually tackle the problem in terms of action in an environment.

    Now try explaining any of the said activities purely in the language of brain activity (without resorting to pseudo science)

    There is no solution to molars rotting Mr Denture

    If you would prefer living in a house with a lock on the door as opposed to one without you are certainly not a stranger to this concept
    So why delay the inevitable .. unless of course you have a preference for existence over non-existence ... an obvious attachment that indicates a bias no doubt ...
    Yeah, compared to existence, non-existence sucks big time ....

    Existence in an environment/consciousness that isn't governed by temporary attachment and existence of course ... kind of makes your boast of living twice as long as your ancestor like a retinal after image of an extinguished candle

    I guess I took it for granted that any discussions of problems would encompass living entities.

    Tell me, if someone spoke of the problems of New York, would you bring to their attention that if you remove all the inhabitants and life forms from the city precincts you would have no problems there?

    Material solutions for material attachment simply translates into postponed trauma at best and exacerbated trauma at worst.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    New Agers tend to be very good at that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Material existence facilitates material desire (and of course drives home consequences for such a foray) so it is anything but making everyone the same.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    ... and rolling ones don't gather moss.
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    It's an a priori assumption, sure, but from there the conclusion is logical, which means the argument is not fallacious.
    Sure, and if push came to shove I don't know... I can only go by the absolute lack of evidence I have for anything non-material.
    Where such a response is reasonable, yes.
    Bear in mind that there's a vast difference between one's day-to-day practical life and the specific positions one holds either in science or philosophical discussions.
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Which is a problem for the moss of course ....
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure I understand.

    Are you saying that the desire for a happiness that is not subject to birth, aging, illness and death
    is still a materially facilitated desire?
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    ... as it has nowhere to settle.
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    From there on, the argument is indeed not fallacious. But that alone doesn't make the initial premise sound.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Such schizoidy is hardly tenable.
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    I am saying that the level playing ground for all living entities is the pursuit of pleasure.

    Material conditioning skewers that into seeking it through the lens of tri-guna (which is necessarily unstable) - so, materially speaking, you see that some versions are better than others, with the top most material happiness being that which isn't subject to birth, death etc (its still material since its driven by one's personal pleasure ... when it makes the bridge to pleasing the senses of god it becomes transcendental .... but I don't really think this is the forum to begin discussing these high end aspects of spiritual life)
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    So does that makes stones superior to moss?
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Stones can neither think nor talk, so they can't tell you. But they can fall on your foot, and that hurts.
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    WTF? If you offer multiple options and only one of them is God, then clearly God is not NEEDED... it can be selected, but is not NEEDED.
    I.e. one does not NEED God because alternatives exist.
    WTF (again)???
    I never said one encompasses the other (yet another of your strawmen).
    I said that if you offer two choices (one God and one not-God) then it is renders the NEED for God moot... i.e. there is no NEED, as alternatives exist.
    You offer two religious solutions, one God and one non-God, yet still argue a need for God, despite giving a non-God alternative.
    When I go for a walk I don't think "I have to put this foot in front of this one, then this one in front of that one..." but it is nonetheless what walking amounts to.
    My point was that any solution you care to mention IS merely a stimulation of the brain, and thus the material problem ultimately has a material solution.
    You think my inability to do so invalidates the position?
    Yay, I can't explain how the sun shines so bright... therefore it doesn't.
    Material problem, material solution.
    I am fortunately incapable at present of wanting to do so - through genetic disposition and experience.
    I wouldn't know. Do you know what non-existence is like? Personally I have no memory of it.
    So your "need" is based on an appeal to emotion, whether that is fear of the inevitable / alternative, or the promise of your desires. Yay for your marketing department.
    I guess you did.
    As previously mentioned, I would not consider this a solution but a removal of the problem.
    Translated by who? An unbiased marketing department?
    Strawman - I never said it was a blue-print... it was to make a specific point to address your "solution for material existence".
    You have since understood your generalisation.
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Sure, but the intention behind the pursuit of that kind of happiness and the associated actions are vastly different that those involved in the pursuit of ordinary material happiness.

    And isn't the pleasing of the senses of God also beyond birth, aging, illness and death?

    Where else then?
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Now go back to the OP and explain the relevance of all this
    IOW whatever drives you to go for a walk can not merely be accomplished by stimulating your brain - you actually have to go out and "do" something

    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Hence to remove this problem you should simply be prohibited from entering within the immediate vicinity of stones.

    In this way the problem of stones falling on your foot can be removed?

    Do you have any other problems that you would like to have removed?
    Sarkus has a real gem of an idea on how to approach them.
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    sure, hence sattva is head and shoulders above rajas and tamas

    yes but it has the added bonus of being bereft of issues of "I and mine" which award it a steady platform

    In a forum that isn't under the magnates of the lowest common denominator I guess
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    The relevance is that your argument does not conclude in the NEED for God... but merely in a justification for God.
    FFS, the "doing" IS stimulation of the brain... i.e. to raise your finger requires stimulation within the brain, to contract the muscles and sinews. I'm not talking about mere intellectual stimulation! Even you should have been able to grasp that!
    Who says it doesn't really work?
    But if you insist on using the logical fallacy of one person's inability as proof that it is impossible, then I appreciate that you hold me in such high regard as being the sole possible provider of proof in such matters.
    Strawman, LG - I never said anything of the sort.
    Should we all now go down the path of making up what the other person says and arguing against that? The thread will quickly deteriorate, though. "LG, if you really think your God has proven to you the world is flat..."
    Or would you rather stick to the arguments actually presented?
    It means that life naturally evolves to try and survive. If it doesn't then it quickly dies out. Therefore our genetics provide us with the instinct to preserve ourselves.
    No, rather it means that two people with the identical genetic structure are still different due to their different experiences (since two people can not occupy the same space at the same time). Since any difference that arises would not be genetic (since the genetics are identical) then any difference must logically be due to experience. Simples.
    You're the one that sees problems.
    There is no NEED to (another misquote by you). There is a desire to, sure, but otherwise it is simply that I probably will, due to the combined input of society.
    You're continuing a strawman.
    You see locks as a problem? :shrug:
    I don't - but you claimed that material existence was in need of a solution. My point was to provide a material existence bereft of problems and thus in no need of a solution. You have accepted this. Move on.
    You're the one misquoting, misunderstanding and raising strawmen, LG.
    I have explained this point again and again to you. You accepted it. Now you seem unable to move on from it. Have you nothing else?
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    now go back to the OP and explain the relevance of your comments

    you said problems can be solved by stimulation - obviously that's not the case
    it means you are borrowing from the authority of science to lend credibility to your hollow claims
    what precisely was your material solution for rotting molars then mr denture?

    Its not genetic disposition its common sense that dictates that we don't kill ourselves to remove a problem
    ahhh .... but the brilliance of non-existence is that is identical regardless of genetics
    On the contrary, you are the one that sees removing living elements from an environment as the ultimate in problem removal

    Its not a misquote. You were praising your existence just before about how it outdoes your ancestors in the same (apparently emotional, strawmen, logically fallacious etc etc etc) manner

    you continue to stand by your idiotic problem removing scheme
    You see living in a house without a lock a problem?
    Actually you claimed that material existence sans life has no problems. Your inability to give a straight answer why you don't live in a house that doesn't have a lock, why you praise existing twice as long as your ancestors or even why you plainly opt for existence over non-existence, despite having problems all plainly point that your 'removal" of living entities as some sort of solution to the problems endemic, intrinsic and indubitable of this world is simply trolling (and it gets better because then you try to weasel your way out of saying that you didn't provide a solution to a problem, you merely provided an idea how to remove the problem

    I think you are done here
    I think the time has come for you to remove yourself from this thread ....
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    You can feed Africans until they are fat, they will still suffer. Of course, this isn't an excuse to ignore hungry people, it's more of a philosophical position. I'm speaking of the suffering that persists after basic needs are met.

Share This Page