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. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    According to you, the burden of proof is on the person who desires to be convinced.

    Heal thyself.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    ^ But Wynn's not asking for proof, merely asking questions to get clarification of the position and to push for understanding of how it might be applied. Perfectly normal for a discussion thread.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    One way to answer this is why does math and science need the concept of infinity, since we can never prove infinity exists with hard data? The moment you place a limit on inifinte it is not infinite anymore. The reason math and science carry this unproven concept forward, is it is mind expanding.

    If we think about an infinite universe, for example, even though we can not prove this, it expands the human mind, so people can think outside the finite box of hard proof, which changes each year. You never know where that expanded perspective may lead. It usually leads to the future.

    Infinity helps the mind addresses physical reality outside the box. Humans are more than objective science. Humans are also aware of subjective reality such as culture, prestige, traditions, politics, arts, class, culture, etc. The god concept is also mind expanding, since God is also infinity, and allows one to think outside that narrow subjective box.

    If these little narrow boxes are sufficient for you, I suppose you really don't need infinity or God since nobody could ever show infinity or God exists. But for those who are not afraid to leave the pen,mindf expansion is good.

    Atheism has an element of objectivity. But it is also subjective. Atheism can only accept unproven infinity, but not God. It is not afraid to open up the objective box, but since God might expand the mind beyond the little box of atheist subjectivity this could cause a problem. It is hard to sheer the sheep when they know how to wander off the narrow subjective pen.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    The difference is infinity is just a useful concept, God is asserted to be objectively real.
  8. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    You fuckers need Me. just admit it and be done with it . I got gifts for you . Mental construct gifts. Fun and games . Lots of Chip and Dales kind of things . Bells on our toes , Nature calls

    Come on you need Me . Just admit it .
    Were would you be if I just disappeared . My work in changing the mind set of the world would just fall by the way side . I got this one . Is that not attractive enough to like me. You need Me our your all gonna die . I mean that in the nicest way too . If I don't complete my work your all doomed . That is what Leviathan side not Me . So get off your high horses .
    You need me even if you don't want to admit it . God whats a guy got to do to be loved on this planet . Fuck me running anyway

    You need me, believe me
  9. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    O.K. O.K. lets go Monty Hall for a little bit and make a deal . How bout that . Lets think about verbiage . We can all green on this and be economical. So the economist says that want and need are the same thing from a marketing stance . It is all about getting the consumer addicted to the product so they buy more.
    So you see where I am going with this don't you .
    Yeah I will settle for
    " You Want Me"
    See how negotiable Me God can be .
    O.K. what ever . Go suck your thumb then
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    then again why kick up a big stink if one plays the same stupidity in saying that there is a difference between africa, per se, and the inhabitants of it, in the midst of a discussion about the problems of africa?

    IOW its common sense that when we are referencing the problems of an environment we are referencing the inhabitants of it (since inanimate things , on consequence of having no consciousness, have zero problem solving skills)

    Its called using teh same general principles of an argument in different scenarios to point out obvious faults of logic.

    You are still unprepared to explain why your general principles are pertinent in one scenario and not another

    You are using it to suggest that there are no problems in the material universe ... much like one could use the same premise to remind others that there are no problems in africa or whatever

    that post says absolutely nothing about your position that the material world has no problems on account that if one removes living entities there are none to mention
    You are simply worming your way out of the argument by saying there are no questions of solutions because there is no question of problems by an attempted use of logic that simply descends the discussion into idiocy

    Its a slip where you obviously prefer existence over non-existence chum - As for the criticisms they are far too hazy to make sense of - At the moment its not even clear whether you will concede that africa has problems, much less the material world , much less a discussion of any solutions
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Testimony. God personally told me he will not reveal himself in the name of Science, and as a test of Faith. The lacking of proof, is proof in His competence.
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    This is strong atheism, though.

    You can't say that
    every thought process we have, even those that utilise the concept of God - the belief that God exists included - to be material, and thus anything that adjusts our mindset is a material solution

    and then turn around and still say
    Note that this speaks nothing of whether God exists or not... merely of our internal thoughts on the matter.

    To say that all solutions, including those "in the guise of religion," are material solutions, is to implicitly assert strong atheism.
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Here's the thing: You can criticize the atheists as much as you want - but it doesn't make theists one iota more attractive, nor theism one iota easier.

    One cannot just make oneself believe in God. Even if there is some desire to do so, or even when one thinks that it would be nice to have such a belief.

    In the end, it all comes down to getting along with theists - and this is everything but easy, given that usually, one is expected to fully and unconditionally submit to the theists, and carry the sole responsibility in relationships with them.

    It's easy enough to beat down atheism (and agnosticism), but making theism seem attractive is a whole different matter.
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    What reason is there to believe that the states of unconsciousness that we may experience during our lifetime are the same as that which will ensue after the death of the body?

    When we are unconscious, the body is still alive, and at least potentially functional. To be able to meaningfully speak of "unconsciousness," the body must be alive.

    When the body dies (and by "death of the body" imagine here being dismembered or squished by a large weight, so that we don't have to consider controversial borderline states such as heart arrest or loss of brain function in what otherwise seems a functional enough body),
    how do we know how this affects consciousness?
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    I don't think that relevant criticism must always be attractive to the relevant parties

    I don't agree.

    Far from having the experience of immediate full unconditional surrender there are various discourses on why this is simply not possible

    I guess it can begin by doing away with nonsense arguments and getting down to more substantial ones.
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    For you it's common sense that a God exists, so hardly a useful means of establishing accuracy and clarity of a statement.
    The logic is of the statement is irrelevant - the straw man, as explained several times now - is in using the argument out of context in an attempt to misrepresent my position.
    I have. You are using the principle to imply that I am proposing a "solution", whereas it was used to highlight an inaccuracy of your claim that material existence required a solution.
    No I am not. That is merely your strawman which you have latched on to.
    I used that argument to show how it was not material existence per se (as you claimed) but merely elements within that material existence that have problems.
    You asked me where I had explained how you misrepresented my argument. Post 105 does that. It does not go back to the original argument I made but explains how you misrepresented it.
    I am not worming my way out of any argument. You are the one avoiding response to the criticism of your posts and raising strawmen to further your own line rather than addressing what people actually say. The idiocy is all your own doing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course I prefer existence. Don't you?
    They're not hazy for anyone who has a shred of decency. But instead you continue to avoid, hoping that it goes away.
    You hadn't actually asked me whether Africa has problems... you merely misrepresented my argument to imply a "solution" I proposed that I clearly didn't.
    Unless you can pinpoint where I have said that Africa doesn't have problems?? :shrug:
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    It's not, although I can see how you might think that.

    First, the claims are based on what I consider rational interpretations of the available evidence... i.e. zero evidence (so far) that I can rationally attribute to an interfering God (and I use "interfering" to mean one who can alter the natural workings).
    I do not claim (or if I appear to have then the error is in the strength of wording) that it is impossible for evidence to be forthcoming, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what that evidence might be.

    Second, it still leaves room for a deistic God - one who created and then moved away to leave us alone.

    Perhaps the wording is too strong, and should be prefaced with "If my understanding is correct then..." but throughout I leave open the possibility that I am wrong.
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I have only ever been unconcsious once in my life... and I experienced nothing... I merely closed my eyes and opened them, yet six hours had passed. There was no experience.
    If one removes the ability to experience (e.g. death) then it makes sense (to me) that one will be in the same scenario.
    But the "I" is not alive. While we are unconscious there are no patterns in the brain that give rise to the "I". Though there are some that regulate the rest of the body. Death is merely the complete loss of cohesion of the "I".
    Even during our normal sleep we usually maintain some sense of "I".

    If you mean what happens when brain and body cease to function, then we only know that no consciousness has so far been scientifically shown to communicate with us from such a position, and that all our understanding of the brain as the seat of consciousness suggests that no brain = no consciousness.
    It is thus a rational conclusion (for me) that death, specifically brain death, results in loss of consciousness.
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    And my beliefs somehow affect your inability to explain your beliefs in what way?

    Let me try again,
    why kick up a big stink if one plays the same stupidity in saying that there is a difference between africa, per se, and the inhabitants of it, in the midst of a discussion about the problems of africa?

    IOW what makes you think a discussion of the problems of the material world somehow is somehow negated by removing the inhabitants of it?

    You simply use words like "out of context" or "strawman" without explainign why.

    Why is the example of africa out of context?

    I've already been over that.

    I am saying that you use it as an example to say there are NO problems there (on account of removing the living entities and voila).

    Hence we can say africa has no problems, the white house has no problems, the earth has no problems etc etc
    Just like it behooves one to explain that it is precisely the elements within africa that have problems ... just in case one was thinking that there are a range of problem solving issues facing the rocks there or something
    Once again, that post says absolutely about your "no problems" stance

    yes you still refuse to answer exactly what are the problems you have with defining Africa along your same line of thinking ...except to say that they are strawmen and out of context ... which of course doesn't clarify anything since you never say why

    I thought you might have preferred non-existence on account of it having "no problems"

    I am not sure how insulting me renders your posts more clear

    actually my question as whether you think its "normal" amidst a discussion of the problems of africa to suddenly break in and say that it has no problems
    No need

    Since africa is part of the material universe and you have said that the material universe doesn't have problems we have more than enough information to fathom your response ....
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    But that goes for everyone except theists, right?

    Any criticism of theists is always wrong, isn't it?

    The discourses may say so, but the theists sure don't.

    There is a phenomenon called the hidden curriculum:

    Hidden curriculum, in general terms, is “some of the outcomes or by-products of schools or of non-school settings, particularly those states which are learned but not openly intended.”[1] However, a variety of definitions have been developed based on the broad range of perspectives of those who study this phenomenon. Any setting, including traditionally recreational and social activities, may teach unintended lessons since it is tied not necessarily to schools but rather to learning experiences.[2] But most often, hidden curriculum refers to various types of knowledge gained in primary and secondary school settings, usually with a negative connotation referring to inequalities suffered as a result of its presence.
    The concept that the hidden curriculum expresses is the idea that schools do more than simply transmit knowledge, as laid down in the official curricula. Behind it lies criticism of the social implications, political underpinnings, and cultural outcomes of modern educative activities.

    There is one thing that theists officially teach - that which is explicitly verbalized, and then there are the teachings that emerge from the way they interact with people.
    And all too often, the two are diametrically opposed.

    The theistic hidden curriculum does in fact teach people that they must submit instantly and unconditionally, or the theists get angry, and, as the official doctrine goes, one won't come to God if one makes theists angry.

  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    p1: Material existence does not have problems.
    p2: Material existence has parts.
    p3: Some of the parts of material existence are commonly called "humans."
    p4: Some humans have problems.

    Explain how is p4 possible.

    If humans are parts of material existence, and material existence has problems, then humans shouldn't have problems, or they are not parts of material existence.
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    any criticism?

    well I guess that just leaves my experience then ....

    It would quite remarkable if people could instantly and completely surrender.

    Material conditioning however makes in frankly impossible
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    As long as you
    1. hail standard Western empiricism as the one and only valid approach for gaining knowledge,
    2. operate out of atheistic notions of God,
    you will continue to see zero evidence for God: for you are not allowing for any evidence of God to be seen to begin with.

    To again quote James:

    When I look at the religious question as it really puts itself to concrete men, and when I think of all the possibilities which both practically and theoretically it involves, then this /agnostic/ command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage, and wait - acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true[ Since belief is measured by action, he who forbids us to believe religion to be true, necessarily also forbids us to act as we should if we did believe it to be true. The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.] till doomsday, or till such time as our intellect and senses working together may have raked in evidence enough, --this command, I say, seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. Were we scholastic absolutists, there might be more excuse. If we had an infallible intellect with its objective certitudes, we might feel ourselves disloyal to such a perfect organ of knowledge in not trusting to it exclusively, in not waiting for its releasing word. But if we are empiricists [pragmatists], if we believe that no bell in us tolls to let us know for certain when truth is in our grasp, then it seems a piece of idle fantasticality to preach so solemnly our duty of waiting for the bell. Indeed we may wait if we will, --I hope you do not think that I am denying that, --but if we do so, we do so at our peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands.


    You admit that you don't know what evidence of God would look like, but at the same time, you believe it is best to act as if we don't know, which in practice means to act as if God doesn't exist.

    And if we act as if God doesn't exist, we surely cut ourselves off from ever knowing anything about God.

    Deism is in effect strong atheism.
    According to deism, the relationship between God and living beings is that of indifference - which is the same as in strong atheism.

    True agnosticism places high demands on its practitioner, including an admission of potentially self-sabotaging behavior.

Share This Page