Why do we need a God?

[lightgigantic]

And you continue to offer the alternative that renders the moot any "need" for God.

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)

"You need A! But B works as well... so actually you don't need A."

Once again, if that was the case you would only see one option - instead you see two or three

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.

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.

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.

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

And your line of argument still relegates "God" merely to one of such concepts, what to speak of the reality of that concept.

Both outlines are presented in the same conceptual manner.

It's not clear what your point is.

"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.

If notions of theory and application were non-different I think things would be quite whacky ...

Have you ever tried to do anything without your brain being stimulated?

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.

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.

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

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

There is no solution to molars rotting Mr Denture

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

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

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.

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 ...

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.

Yeah, compared to existence, non-existence sucks big time ....

For what is "God" needed?

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

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.

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?

Sure, there are things that we interpret as problems, but these are material in nature and material in solution... even if cerebral.

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

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?"

meh
and the notion of material existence bereft of consciousness as a blue print for problem free material existence somehow makes the grade for a "real solution"?


Stones don't have problems I guess .....

 

[wynn]

(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)

New Agers tend to be very good at that.

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

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

 

[wynn]

Stones don't have problems I guess .....

... and rolling ones don't gather moss.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

It's an a priori assumption, sure, but from there the conclusion is logical, which means the argument is not fallacious.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[lightgigantic]

... and rolling ones don't gather moss.

Which is a problem for the moss of course ....

 

[wynn]

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

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?

 

[wynn]

Which is a problem for the moss of course ....

... as it has nowhere to settle.

 

[wynn]

It's an a priori assumption, sure, but from there the conclusion is logical, which means the argument is not fallacious.

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

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.

Such schizoidy is hardly tenable.

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

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)

 

[lightgigantic]

... as it has nowhere to settle.

So does that makes stones superior to moss?

 

[wynn]

So does that makes stones superior to moss?

Stones can neither think nor talk, so they can't tell you. But they can fall on your foot, and that hurts.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually it doesn't.
If it rendered it moot there would only be one viable alternative.
...
Once again, if that was the case you would only see one option - instead you see two or three

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.

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).

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.

IOW I think you have lost track of this thread if you think its pertinent to atheists

You offer two religious solutions, one God and one non-God, yet still argue a need for God, despite giving a non-God alternative.
Staggering.

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.

FFS.
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.

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

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.

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

Material problem, material solution.

So why delay the inevitable ..

I am fortunately incapable at present of wanting to do so - through genetic disposition and experience.

Yeah, compared to existence, non-existence sucks big time ....

I wouldn't know. Do you know what non-existence is like? Personally I have no memory of it.

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

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

I guess you did.

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?

As previously mentioned, I would not consider this a solution but a removal of the problem.

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

Translated by who? An unbiased marketing department?

and the notion of material existence bereft of consciousness as a blue print for problem free material existence somehow makes the grade for a "real solution"?

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.

 

[wynn]

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 ...

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?

but I don't really think this is the forum to begin discussing these high end aspects of spiritual life)

Where else then?

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Now go back to the OP and explain the relevance of all this
:shrug:

FFS.
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.

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

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.

It means the category you dictate as all encompassing for all problems doesn't really work as an all encompassing category

IOW whatever reductionist explanation you try to offer for the sun shining cannot really establish the monopoly of reductionist though tin explaining the phenomena ... much like whatever solution to material existence you try to advocate as being solved by "brain stimulation" cannot really establish it as viable

Material problem, material solution.

Ironic that the solution for rotting molars is identical to your solution to the problems of NYC - get rid of them

I am fortunately incapable at present of wanting to do so - through genetic disposition and experience.

What precisely is this genetic disposition or is this more pseudo scientific tripe?
As for citing experience, that seems to be a tell tale bias for existence over non-existence ... since non-existence draws a big flat line in terms of existence

I wouldn't know. Do you know what non-existence is like? Personally I have no memory of it.

apparently it has a lot going for it ... like no problems

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.

No more than your need to outdo your ancestors in terms of existence

I guess you did.
As previously mentioned, I would not consider this a solution but a removal of the problem.

Probably explains why most people view such "removals" as idiotic and brainless since they don't solve anything ...

Translated by who? An unbiased marketing department?

translated by anyone who prefers to live in a house with locks as opposed to a house bereft of them ...

Strawman - I never said it was a blue-print... it was to make a specific point to address your "solution for material existence".

But you just said earlier that you don't see it as a solution.
Please cease this thread derailing idiocy - I am sure that if you went over to a thread about problems in the middle east and started talking about how one can remove all problems by removing all the people you would have a bevy of infractions under your belt

You have since understood your generalisation.

My bad.
Here I was thinking I was discussing solutions for a problem when one must never forget that one can remove the problem by simply eliminating life .. after all what problems can possible take foot in an environment bereft of life?

 

[lightgigantic]

Stones can neither think nor talk, so they can't tell you. But they can fall on your foot, and that hurts.

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.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

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

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

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

Where else then?

In a forum that isn't under the magnates of the lowest common denominator I guess

 

[Sarkus]

Now go back to the OP and explain the relevance of all this

The relevance is that your argument does not conclude in the NEED for God... but merely in a justification for God.

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

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!

It means the category you dictate as all encompassing for all problems doesn't really work as an all encompassing category

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.

Ironic that the solution for rotting molars is identical to your solution to the problems of NYC - get rid of them

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?

What precisely is this genetic disposition or is this more pseudo scientific tripe?

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.

As for citing experience, that seems to be a tell tale bias for existence over non-existence ... since non-existence draws a big flat line in terms of existence

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.

apparently it has a lot going for it ... like no problems

You're the one that sees problems.

No more than your need to outdo your ancestors in terms of existence

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.

Probably explains why most people view such "removals" as idiotic and brainless since they don't solve anything ...

You're continuing a strawman.

translated by anyone who prefers to live in a house with locks as opposed to a house bereft of them ...

You see locks as a problem? :shrug:

But you just said earlier that you don't see it as a solution.

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.

Please cease this thread derailing idiocy...

You're the one misquoting, misunderstanding and raising strawmen, LG.

Here I was thinking I was discussing solutions for a problem when one must never forget that one can remove the problem by simply eliminating life .. after all what problems can possible take foot in an environment bereft of life?

Strawman.
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?

 

[lightgigantic]

The relevance is that your argument does not conclude in the NEED for God... but merely in a justification for God.

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

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!

you said problems can be solved by stimulation - obviously that's not the case

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.

it means you are borrowing from the authority of science to lend credibility to your hollow claims

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?

what precisely was your material solution for rotting molars then mr denture?

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.

Its not genetic disposition its common sense that dictates that we don't kill ourselves to remove a problem

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.

ahhh .... but the brilliance of non-existence is that is identical regardless of genetics

You're the one that sees problems.

On the contrary, you are the one that sees removing living elements from an environment as the ultimate in problem removal
:shrug:

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.

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're continuing a strawman.

you continue to stand by your idiotic problem removing scheme

You see locks as a problem?

You see living in a house without a lock 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.

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

You're the one misquoting, misunderstanding and raising strawmen, LG.
Strawman.

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?

I think you are done here
I think the time has come for you to remove yourself from this thread ....

 

[spidergoat]

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

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.