Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?

[Clive Staples]

A few things, if I can remember them all.

1. Even with the reason that has been endowed by us by this conscious creator, in this example, it is 99% likely that we could never possibly comprehend what the creator intended to do and why he intended to do it. So, in this unlabeled non-Christian "generic" argument, searching for a reason of why the creator touched the snowball of suffering down the mountain of creation is virtually a futile endeavor. To cross-reference this idea, see Job.

2. A much clearer definition of "suffering" is necessary for this argument. You speak of suffering that has been going on for millions of years; I think of suffering as only perceivable by self-conscious beings. Of course, dinosaurs were eaten by other dinosaurs, and mastodons froze, and trees died...but in my mind, if un-self-conscious beings do in fact suffer (which is in itself debatable), they suffer on a profoundly less substantial level than humans do.

3. This third point is a bit iffy...more of a question. Do you think it's reasonable for at least the illustrative quality of the argument to dream up some other existence that doesn't have suffering? I, personally, am at a loss for imagining a word barren of suffering.

[littlemissattitude]

If there is a deity or deities (and I tend to believe there is, which may disqualify me from this discussion, as I seem to recall it being said that this thread was generally for athiests and agnostics. I step in where I probably shouldn't tread, anyway. Bad habit of mine.)...

If there is a deity or deities, I think the greatest favor he/she/it/they have done for us mortals is to put us in a situation where there really is no objective way to prove conclusively that he/she/it/they exist/s. This attitude comes from my belief that finding God/the gods is not the point of the whole exercise - what is the point, is the journey we each take on the way to the discovery. The things we learn - about ourselves, about others, about the world and the universe that surround us - are just as important as coming to know deity, or not.

Now, I am not saying that it is impossible for an individual to come to a personal and subjective understanding that deity/deities exist, or that they do not. I am just saying that, as things stand, that understanding is necessarily personal and subjective, and that one person's understanding - either way, that there is a God or gods or that there is not - should not be imposed on anyone else. I'm really uncomfortable with the attitude that belief (on non-belief) in a God or gods makes an individual inherently kinder, better, or smarter (not that I'm saying that has been going on in this thread; however, I have seen it happen in the course of other such discussions). Disucssions/arguments over the possibilities are interesting, but in and of themselves never really prove anything and should not become contentious. One individual's proof might well mean nothing to another individual.

For example, I am fond of saying that the existence of strawberries, oranges, beautiful sunsets, and really good books are proofs of God's existence. That's fine for me, but do not and should not have anything to do with another's analysis of the question.

[pseudonymous]

emong,

I'm not sure "suffering" can be applied until man arrived....since it's man that defines what suffering is.

i would state that it is nerve endings that define suffering and/or pain. there seems ample evidence that pain and suffering are a universal of all sentient forms that have a nervous system.

dcv-

[pseudonymous]

clive,

welcome to the discussion and community if i hadn't already. i am a newbie myself.

Do you think it's reasonable for at least the illustrative quality of the argument to dream up some other existence that doesn't have suffering? I, personally, am at a loss for imagining a word barren of suffering.

i think that the whole idea of a world without suffering is very likely in my concept that evolution is finding the physical body obsolete. if consciousness were awakening in the physical realm and believed itself to be the body - as most lesser evolved species would likely think - then arrived at a knowing that the "what" (witness) that it was was not the vehicle it was housed in, and that it could survive physical death (enter mediumship and clairsentience etc) then it would be able to do a simple equation:

the physical body is the vehicle that has me suffering and in pain because of its nervous system and appetites

the physical body is not what i am, but is what leads me to be who i am

the discarding of a preset form as dictated by physical evolution is obsolete should evolution enter a way to house my consciousness in a conscious way. one body, not base physical requiring consumption and the birth/death cycle. it would mean i could continue to evolve without forgetting what i was each death/birth cycle. there would be no need for a physical birth/death cycle, although the spiritual concept of birth/death would likely still be applicable.

i think the problem most see is that there has to be a duality for consciousness to evolve. in my case, i have found that central place between the active & passive principles affords me neither distraction - high or lows - but what is presently necessary to take a step forward.

the tides have only been necessary because we have identification with a masculine and feminine duality...in balance, there are no tides...only progression in a natural flow rather that jumps and stops.

dcv-

[I, Brian]

LOL! to pseudonymous - I think I'm just parroting an argument I made against myself some years ago. Thank goodness others are able to make much more perceptive comments.

[brucegdc]

The problem with trying to argue the existence or non-existence of "God" comes in a couple of flavors:

1) Attributes of the thing you're trying to decide exists. When there's no way to directly perceive it, you can only infer existence/non-existence based on attributes. "If blue dogs existed, hotdog buns would be pink". "Not so - that's assuming that if blue dogs existed, equal rights militants would demand coordinating buns, but nobody's that militant, so your argument goes poof". A tad silly, but pointing out the problem - if you're going to argue the non-existence of something based on "if it existed, this wouldn't happen", it can be spliced out by arguing the implied attribute isn't necessary. The other direction says "this is so, so there must be something with this attribute existing", which is open to as much of a rebuttal.

2) Differences in language. God to a Southern Baptist is not the same as God to a Unitarian. They have very different concepts referenced by the same word. Until you agree on the set of concepts referenced, the argument becomes not compelling. "Yea, there is a God because there's thunder and lightning". "But what has that got to do with the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la? That's what *I* mean by a God".

[Clive Staples]

Brucegdc--I agree more or less with what you're saying.

Pseudonymous--I would argue, as would CS Lewis, that there are different types of suffering, and the type you seem to be most concerned with is what he calls, I think, "animal suffering." Real pain that has to do with the body. CS and I would say that there is a much greater and much more profound type of suffering that exists, and that would exist, even if our consciousness was able to survive without the body.

[pseudonymous]

I would argue, as would CS Lewis, that there are different types of suffering, and the type you seem to be most concerned with is what he calls, I think, "animal suffering." Real pain that has to do with the body.

to a degree yes, if the human body can be understood as a mammalian body - thus animal - after all it is our minds that really set us apart from the rest of sentience. but it is suffering & pain in general that i am referring to, and since it is primarily physical-referenced, then i would not disagree with you. without a body, suffering & pain would likely become nil, if not close to it.

i think it is likewise prudent to bear in mind that neither extreme would be necessary (good/bad. right/wrong, joy/pain, etc) once the duality of the physical realm could be transcended. so far, it has been my experience that that place of balance between the passive and active is not a static state whatsoever - if anything, without the distraction of attachments (which seem to stem from there being poles) the journey would be far less bumpy. i think a journey without bumps is doable, if only we had gone the rounds of the bumps first. this does not necessitate a deity, but that perhaps evolution might dictate that it be so. i never said suffering & pain weren't necessary if it is unfolding into a wakeful consciousness...i do question the evidence of a deity in such however. a conscious creator it would seem would know the poles/duality weren't necessary if it were already there. it seems only necessary if the evolving entity journeys from unconscious to conscious.

there is a much greater and much more profound type of suffering that exists, and that would exist, even if our consciousness was able to survive without the body.

this intrigued me. from a place of wanting to contemplate this, why would there be an assumption of suffering without the physical? i do think that there are entities that currently suffer without a physical body, but from what i have experienced, it has to do with associating with the physical realm they were supposed to leave behind, but because of whatever attachments, failed to do so.

dcv-

[pseudonymous]

brucegdc,

thank you for joining in the mix here...

but pointing out the problem - if you're going to argue the non-existence of something based on "if it existed, this wouldn't happen", it can be spliced out by arguing the implied attribute isn't necessary. The other direction says "this is so, so there must be something with this attribute existing", which is open to as much of a rebuttal.

as humans, all we really have to contemplate our reality is the "as above, so below" rosetta stone. for a truth to be a absolute truth, it must reflect all the way up and all the way down. this tool has always been one of my greatest assets in discovering the mechanics of the unknown. it has also been a way for exploration using what logic & reason we have...our ability to imagine stems from reflecting on the known as to how it might point to the unknown.

i don't disagree with your statements, but i also know that i never lose sight of the fact that it is all conjecture & speculation. as i've said before, the 10 year old girl down the street may be sitting on the answer everyone has been seeking for the ages...we simply cannot know until we are there. but that doesn't pale the exploration for me. it comes naturally for some, as these forums reflect. however, the difference between the other forum's and this one as regards this question being posed is night and day. there i am attacked and called all sorts of expletives (threatening their ontologies)...here folks are mature enough to have a real dialogue. brian doesn't like credit, and yet a community does reflect its founder...and its members.

dcv-

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by pseudonymous

to a degree yes, if the human body can be understood as a mammalian body - thus animal - after all it is our minds that really set us apart from the rest of sentience. but it is suffering & pain in general that i am referring to, and since it is primarily physical-referenced, then i would not disagree with you. without a body, suffering & pain would likely become nil, if not close to it.

dcv-

Namaste pseudonymous,

there are other types of pain and suffering as well... mental and emotional. whilst i think a certain degree of these other types of suffering are implicit in a physical form, they are not restricted to it and would be able to transcend it.

let's say, for instance, that one had comitted a terrible deed in their life, say killing a child, on purpose, for revenge.

the physical body of said individual will have it's related sufferings and pains... the mind and emotional consciousness of the individual will also bear the marks of suffering for this past misdeed.

in a very real sense, we can postulate that said individuals mental state and emotional state will be the "heaven" or "hell" that they experience as the conciousness, freed from the body, expands. if one is not prepared for such a thing, it can be very frightening and cause one to "grasp" after a physical body.... thus propelling them into a rebirth that will be either higher, lower of same depending on the relative state of their moral development... which is, perhaps, another way of saying Karma.

i would agree, however, that when pain and suffering are generally being discussed it is the physical that is emphasized.

by the by... this is one of the reasons that i nearly always correct the mistranslation of Dhukka as suffering.... since suffering doesn't really connote the mental and emotional aspects.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

Without pain I would burn my foot off in the campfire.

Only because fire is destructive. The laws of the universe operate in ways that are not, in general, conducive to human life. To me that indicates that the universe is not particularly designed with humans in mind; the universe just does what it does, and humans are just one of the outcomes that arise.

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by bob x

Only because fire is destructive. The laws of the universe operate in ways that are not, in general, conducive to human life. To me that indicates that the universe is not particularly designed with humans in mind; the universe just does what it does, and humans are just one of the outcomes that arise.

To which I reply, "So?"

Because a man can be burned, you discern that it wasn't designed with humans in mind? Who were campstoves designed for then? I've been burned on them. You desire a universe in which fires and humans are mutually incompatable.

However, the universe was not designed around man. That's true. Man was created in the universe...in God's image.

[pseudonymous]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

To which I reply, "So?"

Because a man can be burned, you discern that it wasn't designed with humans in mind? Who were campstoves designed for then? I've been burned on them. You desire a universe in which fires and humans are mutually incompatable.

However, the universe was not designed around man. That's true. Man was created in the universe...in God's image.

i think you might of put a whole lot of words, and desires for that matter, into bob's observations that i for one did not read into them.

as to your final sentences, that is one perception that has been postulated by humanity, but is hardly conclusive...although your language would have one think that you believe it is.

dcv-

[pseudonymous]

Originally Posted by bob x

The laws of the universe operate in ways that are not, in general, conducive to human life.

bob, i think you were right on in the rest of this post, but this sentence seems for me personally to fall short of the mark...if the universe operated in ways that were not conducive to human life, we wouldn't be here after all. i think the last sentence in your post,

the universe is not particularly designed with humans in mind; the universe just does what it does, and humans are just one of the outcomes that arise.

was really all you needed to get a great point home. it really demonstrates too that the human form is just a part of that long line of evolving forms to house the expansion of consciousness on the planet.

for me i see the body (as pre-formed substance taken form) as related to the passive principle, and our consciousness related to the active principle, and when the two co-inhabit form is the effect. the form becomes more complex as the self consciousness expands throughout evolution. of course, i could be under the influence of sinus allergy pills too, and be prattling on delusionally. that would be a hoot, wouldn't it?

dcv-

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by pseudonymous

i think you might of put a whole lot of words, and desires for that matter, into bob's observations that i for one did not read into them.

as to your final sentences, that is one perception that has been postulated by humanity, but is hardly conclusive...although your language would have one think that you believe it is.

dcv-

I know Bobx from a different forum. A good man whom I rarely agree with.

I don't intend to be conclusive. I have only rarely seen anyone's mind changed in any of these forums, only arguments refined or abandoned. However, it never hurts to state the traditional beliefs. Whether you come to believe the traditional Christian teachings depends upon your journey.