Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Hmmm, as in Heaven, so on Earth...

God makes a good scapegoat for man's complaints, as do parents for their childrens' complaints. Ideally, parents understand the imperfections in their children, yet children usually find fault in the parents. Children turn their backs on their parents (usually for a short time, while trying to figure out their place in the world). And under normal circumstances, children invariably turn back to their parents. Time is the key.

Anyone who is a parent of teens and precocious kids can understand to a degree, the frustration of the Son and the Father. But I think the two have different frustrations. One is that of a parent seeing the potential of his child going to waste, and the other is that of the "older Brother" seeing his siblings showing their backside out of spite, to Dad.

As the oldest of five, I remember getting angrier than my parents at the antics of my siblings (even though I too went through the butt showing to my folks at one point). For a long time, I did become the "law enforcer" while keeping the folks out of the frustration picture. I just didn't want Dad (who worked his ass off), to have to deal with sibling stupidity.

Being HUMAN, it did not always work, but the template that Jesus sort of provided, was used.

The similarities between earthly families and heavenly social structure, are points to pause and reflect over...don't you think?

v/r

Q

Good comparison. Yes, they are good to reflect over.

[juantoo3]

Indeed, they are.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Forgive me for talking about myself.

About blaming God, there was a time when I was angry with God.

Now I am still angry with God, only my anger is platonic. Platonic? Yes, like there is love and there is platonic love.

Now I just indulge myself and impose on His patience with long discussions about His ways, His scripts, and what I think He could be better, could think better, and could do better.

At the end of the day, I always end up with giving God the benefit of the doubt or giving Him His due, as Jesus tells us: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar..., and in God we have a super all in all and all in on Caesar.

At the end of the day, also, I tell God, as Jesus advises us to do so: You are the boss, we are just your hirelings, unprofitable servants.

No, I don't get disturbed at all with God's ways, being platonic as I try my best to be all the time; but I do indulge in bringing up my perplexities about God before others to find out how they deal with them. In most instances, they don't see or can't, or won't see the perplexities.

Susma Rio Sep

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Forgive me for talking about myself.

About blaming God, there was a time when I was angry with God.

Now I am still angry with God, only my anger is platonic. Platonic? Yes, like there is love and there is platonic love.

Now I just indulge myself and impose on His patience with long discussions about His ways, His scripts, and what I think He could be better, could think better, and could do better.

At the end of the day, I always end up with giving God the benefit of the doubt or giving Him His due, as Jesus tells us: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar..., and in God we have a super all in all and all in on Caesar.

At the end of the day, also, I tell God, as Jesus advises us to do so: You are the boss, we are just your hirelings, unprofitable servants.

No, I don't get disturbed at all with God's ways, being platonic as I try my best to be all the time; but I do indulge in bringing up my perplexities about God before others to find out how they deal with them. In most instances, they don't see or can't, or won't see the perplexities.

Susma Rio Sep

Good Afternoon Susma,

Your very thought pattern is the sort that God enjoys, or sees potential in (I think).

My grand mother (rest her soul) told me very young that God prefers us Hot or Cold towards Him. He can work well with both, because they are flip sides of the same coin. What He can't stand is the luke warmers. She said it would be like eating a freshly baked apple with spices, or chewing on frozen apple slices. Or having to eat an apple that is two weeks over ripe...very mushy, and disgusting.

I argue with God all the time. I won't call it a debate because for one I'm very emotional, passionate about it, and two I'd be way out of my league.

My arguements are usuallY started with "WHY" and end with "I SEE NO LOGIC IN THIS, SO WHAT'S THE POINT". Then usually within the course of minutes, hours or days, I am answered. The answer is invariably clear, specific, and often with a touch of humor or awe (to drive the point home).

Then of course I feel stunned, or chastised, or elated, depending upon what I was arguing about.

And you know what? God has made it clear from time to time that I was absolutely right!!!!

...but my timing was off.

Keep on arguing, and He'll keep on listening. He loves when we talk DIRECTLY to Him, with no camoflaged emotions.

("Hey son, I just got hit with a double barrel today, Susma and Q were fired up about such and such and they gave me an earful for several hours. Yep their blood was pumping, their brains were kicked into high gear and their hearts were full of emotion...they were well thought out on their respective matters though. When their spirits have calmed down, I'll whisper the answers they are seeking...can't wait to see the look on their faces.")

[El Greko]

If only I had the Pagan Prophet on my side, we could really enjoy a spin down at Starbucks.

Are you really a Pagan?

Are you really a Prophet, or is it just a term of endearment

Do you prophecy?

I have read the titantic battle in the earlier exchanges, my only regret is that I have no idea about most of what is being argued, but something about the Pagan Prophet draws me close to him or could it be her or what that be a Prophetess?

If I had the gift of prophecy I would love to find out you live near Sarfend, stoll along the seafront, eating a bag of chips and talk about, oh, just about everything except, of course, "all organised religion causes war" and try to love you like a brother and or sister

I am certain that everyone who contributes to his feature, on both sides of the fence, really are caring, warmhearted people, well , perhaps except me I would hate people to think I am nice, deep down, arrrrgggghhh

[Susma Rio Sep]

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

[Pedro]

Hello All
I've searched this thread unsuccessfully for a mention of the Fall, for that, in christian terms, is where pain and suffering stem from. The story of the Fall in the bible is of course given under allegory, for all this pain and suffering didn't stem from apples. Yet there was a Golden Age when humanity walked in the Garden with God and the creatures and all was harmony. Conditions then were not the pain they are now. The creation of God was perfect. Then came the Fall, originated by a High Son of God, who exercising his free will, chose to go out of the will of God.
The story of the bible since then has been Gods plan of Redemption, which will ultimate in a return to Edenic conditions This will be a planet restored to its original status.

[El Greko]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

I think I owe you an apology Rio, I had a good rant, but I am better now, it
was a hard week and I blue a fuse, that's showbiz!

[suanni]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Now, if we all believers in the one God would just learn to talk together over differences, guys like Bush and his colleagues and guys like Bin Laden and his, I am sure all of us will be happer and live longer -- before the good Lord calls us to the next phase of our existence.

Susma Rio Sep

Totally agree. Its time all differences were put aside. We're all made by the same being, we just call this being different names.
Then again.... I'm sure Bush and Bin Laden (or whoever decides to pick a fight) would find another subject to fight a war over. Isn't it man's way to find fault with others?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by suanni

Totally agree. Its time all differences were put aside. We're all made by the same being, we just call this being different names.
Then again.... I'm sure Bush and Bin Laden (or whoever decides to pick a fight) would find another subject to fight a war over. Isn't it man's way to find fault with others?

I will just say this about Bush and company: for all the money and lives they are investing in their war against terrorism, if they just spend only a tenth part of finance and people, to talk with all peoples from where terrorists come, and compromise with them, terrorism will be a thing of the past from the terrorist groups. Obviously, that common sense is lost to them because they are after something else.


Shall we go back to the best proof of the lack of a deity?

Understanding deity as the conventional God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, I think the question is better phrased in the positive way: The best proof of God's existence.

For me, the real question in the final analysis is whether God is impersonal or personal, understanding a person as we humans are persons. And that's the only kind of persons we know and are in contact with directly and experientially.

What then is a person in human terms? A person in human terms is an agent with rights and obligations, and for the present stage of human mental development, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is there a personal God in those terms, or is God the sum total of the universe, including mankind, but that sum itself being impersonal?

I choose the luxury of the belief in a personal God, only with the following exceptions: no obligations strictly in Him, but otherwise He chooses to act in the manner of humans, i.e., like a human person: presenting Himself as being after rights and bound by obligations, going after happiness. You can find Him in some of His worst personalistic aspects in the Old Testament.

I say luxury of the belief in a personal God, for this is one luxury that I can afford and for me it is a good luxury, as long as you don't get overly addicted to it, as to forget the real metaphysical dimensions of God, and get drowned in the human personal ones which He allows Himself.

Susma Rio Sep

[louis]

[QUOTE=pseudonymous]pain & suffering is a universal at least once in any sentient's life, and a deity responsible for the gazillions of past, present, and future experiencers should be ashamed of itself...especially if it were a judgmental deity on top of that. it remains the single greatest argument against a conscious creator.

From Louis... an impartial outsider who has never
practised any form of religion.
It seems to me that "pain and suffering" plus
their flip side "pleasure and happiness" are
essential parts of being ALIVE.
Pain is our alarm system - telling us that something
is wrong and that WE need to learn to fix it - not blame
it on things "beyond our control" like God or the Devil.

[Quahom1]

[QUOTE=louis]

Originally Posted by pseudonymous

pain & suffering is a universal at least once in any sentient's life, and a deity responsible for the gazillions of past, present, and future experiencers should be ashamed of itself...especially if it were a judgmental deity on top of that. it remains the single greatest argument against a conscious creator.

From Louis... an impartial outsider who has never
practised any form of religion.
It seems to me that "pain and suffering" plus
their flip side "pleasure and happiness" are
essential parts of being ALIVE.
Pain is our alarm system - telling us that something
is wrong and that WE need to learn to fix it - not blame
it on things "beyond our control" like God or the Devil.

To an unborn child going through the "throes of pain" at "being born" (dying I'm certain the child thinks, since his/her whole world just collapsed in and the child is being pushed out), life is unbearable, that is until placed in swaddling and wrapped around by warm arms, cooing sounds, sometimes tears touching the skin, harsh happy sounds of laughter (by men), and blurry visions of BIG things that seem to take a great interest in the self, points out that there is pleasure, and soon the "pain" is forgotten (unless any of you can remember passing the birth canal). For one I can only remember the wonder of the rumbling sounds each dark time I spent on my back (night at a military air base), being low and powerful in reasonance, but peaceful with the constant rhythm. That puts me at about two weeks old, close to a Sac air strip.

In Judaeic/Christian teachings we are told "WE were known before we were stitched together in the womb". Does that mean we knew God (or the devil)? Not sure. When did I become consiously cognizant of God? Can't say exactly. Maybe 12 months, when I crawled into the attic and saw the stain glassed half moon window with a peacock design magnifying the sun's light in brilliant colors. (pleasure and pain), brilliance and brightness. I sensed something wonderful, even to my simple mind.

I can't blame a God for my pain. Nor can a credit a devil for my pleasure (what an oxymoron of a thought). I think there are things beyond our control that influence us in our actions and what happens to us, but the crux is, how we react to these subtle influences. That is where the God and the devil come into play.

Hell I'm 43, and still stare into the azure glow of certain blue bottles, and get lost in the wonder of the color, or in like colored glass in a church. The pleasure and pain are still there. But the wonder tops all. I seem to carry that idea through my life.

Never mind the devil, is man basically good (altruistic, self-sacrificing, put others before self)? Or is man basically evil (bad, selfish, selfcentered, narcissistic, me first)? There is the true point of man...the ultimate answer to this question. Then we can define God and devil.

There are alot of exceptions to the rule, I understand. But the question remains: Where does God leave off, Man begins, and a "devil" undermines?

Who's fault/credit goes to the current existance of our lives?

That is complicated and at once, simple. Humans are at fault.

If there is no "GOD", then Humans are at fault. If there is a "Caring GOD and a devil", then again Humans are at fault.

If there is a non caring "GOD", then again Humans are at fault.

Why? In all events, or potential concepts of existence, WE choose. We will, and We win, or lose.

Pain and pleasure, begins and ends with us.

v/r

Q

[DrewJMore]

By rigorous & logical means, one can neither 'prove' nor 'disprove' the existence of god. This is the basic assertion of the agnostic position, which is unassailable. Those who are not satisfied with this truth fall into well-trodden camps: the Faithful and the Atheist.



The Faithful holds that God, defined minimally as a 'higher power,' exists. This belief is founded on an emotional basis: they 'feel' that it must be true. What happens to the souls of their deceased loved ones? Who arbitrates morality & justice? What causes existence? The Atheist holds, of course, the opposite. There is, and can be, no god. There is no soul. There is nothing beyond the life we (seem to) know. Morality and justice are strictly relative.



Practically then, the Faithful can appeal to a father figure who codifies a divine law for all to follow. The Atheist must be more pragmatic, but can achieve similar legal conclusions. This leads to a special case of the Faithful, called the Religious. These can be burdened in ways that the Atheist cannot. Since their leaders maintain laws of 'divine origin,' they are unquestionable and have lead to many an atrocity. The Religious hold to their scriptures as 'inspired' despite having no foundation for its 'divinity.' Proceeding logically from such a premise, (i.e. the unproven, hence illogical, existence of god) there is no end, nor means to it, that cannot be 'logically' justified. As such, religion is distributed as opium to the masses in service of political purposes.



Religious systems, per se, function for their own continuity. Those systems that have successfully converted and held significant membership through the ages continue to exist. A corollary function of such systems is to destroy competing systems. There have been few greater, or more senseless, sources of suffering than the inherent instability amongst these systems. Crusaders, Jihadi (the Religious) & their ilk outnumber the (generally pacifist) Faithful by no accident.



No such negative aspects stem from the position of the Atheist. A well-adjusted, intelligent Atheist knows that benevolent reciprocity is the best policy in personal relationships, without spiritual guidance. They know that murder, larceny & covetousness must not be tolerated in society. All creatures appreciate beauty, quite irrespective of divine influence, although the standards are decidedly relative. Without an afterlife, Atheists control their own destiny, understanding that they “only live once.” There is no strife amongst Atheist sects, since there are no such sects.



The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is some minimal level of Faithfulness that does no harm. Agnostics & Atheists are not generally to blame for suffering. In contrast, the Religious must make a case for themselves against a hostile jury, and apologize for much of human history in so doing.





A parting shot:

If God existed,

It would be an Atheist.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

By rigorous & logical means, one can neither 'prove' nor 'disprove' the existence of god. This is the basic assertion of the agnostic position, which is unassailable. Those who are not satisfied with this truth fall into well-trodden camps: the Faithful and the Atheist.



The Faithful holds that God, defined minimally as a 'higher power,' exists. This belief is founded on an emotional basis: they 'feel' that it must be true. What happens to the souls of their deceased loved ones? Who arbitrates morality & justice? What causes existence? The Atheist holds, of course, the opposite. There is, and can be, no god. There is no soul. There is nothing beyond the life we (seem to) know. Morality and justice are strictly relative.



Practically then, the Faithful can appeal to a father figure who codifies a divine law for all to follow. The Atheist must be more pragmatic, but can achieve similar legal conclusions. This leads to a special case of the Faithful, called the Religious. These can be burdened in ways that the Atheist cannot. Since their leaders maintain laws of 'divine origin,' they are unquestionable and have lead to many an atrocity. The Religious hold to their scriptures as 'inspired' despite having no foundation for its 'divinity.' Proceeding logically from such a premise, (i.e. the unproven, hence illogical, existence of god) there is no end, nor means to it, that cannot be 'logically' justified. As such, religion is distributed as opium to the masses in service of political purposes.



Religious systems, per se, function for their own continuity. Those systems that have successfully converted and held significant membership through the ages continue to exist. A corollary function of such systems is to destroy competing systems. There have been few greater, or more senseless, sources of suffering than the inherent instability amongst these systems. Crusaders, Jihadi (the Religious) & their ilk outnumber the (generally pacifist) Faithful by no accident.



No such negative aspects stem from the position of the Atheist. A well-adjusted, intelligent Atheist knows that benevolent reciprocity is the best policy in personal relationships, without spiritual guidance. They know that murder, larceny & covetousness must not be tolerated in society. All creatures appreciate beauty, quite irrespective of divine influence, although the standards are decidedly relative. Without an afterlife, Atheists control their own destiny, understanding that they “only live once.” There is no strife amongst Atheist sects, since there are no such sects.



The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is some minimal level of Faithfulness that does no harm. Agnostics & Atheists are not generally to blame for suffering. In contrast, the Religious must make a case for themselves against a hostile jury, and apologize for much of human history in so doing.





A parting shot:

If God existed,

It would be an Atheist.

Good Evening Drew,

Perhaps you are correct. But before you close the book on your convictions, I invite you to take a good look around you. Look past the people, pain, and the dirt. Everything has form and function. Nothing is lost to chaos. Everything has order. Order can only come from an orderly something. If anything is left to its own devices, the natural "order" of things is the Entropy effect. That is, to break down to the most basic simple state. But that does not happen. Everything repairs itself (or tries to). Why? That is not a natural state of being. What is keeping it all together? Humans?

You know...God loves it when someone thinks of Him/Her/It, especially an Atheist.

v/r

Q

[Blue]

Consider these words of Q:
"Everything has order. Order can only come from an orderly something. If anything is left to its own devices, the natural "order" of things is the Entropy effect. That is, to break down to the most basic simple state. But that does not happen. Everything repairs itself (or tries to). Why? That is not a natural state of being. What is keeping it all together?"

It contains the words: "IF anything is left to its own devices...."

This 'natural order of which you speak seems to deny the observations any of us can make... Where is the 'order' in an unexpected vehicle crashing into mine? Where is the order in the chaos of a Tsunami swamping the land and causing thousands of deaths? Where is the order in the gradual rundown apparent in all living creatures as they age? Where is the order in you maybe winning the lottery this week?

A human body will only repair itself under certain conditions, at other times it needs external help from surgeons and medics.

If you are looking for some universal priniciple of 'order', could you please tell us where to look?

Is there 'order' in your free choice to answer this Post or not?

If there was a universal concept of 'order' observable it would seem there would be no free will, no choices to be made.

Even mathematics abstractly now considers a possible state of 'disorder' or Chaos as a main possible principle.

You say, Q, that nothing is lost to chaos.... do you really think that?

=======

I cannot fault the Thread post here by DrewJMore... it is reasonably and coolly presented and your argument seems affected by affective prejudgements concerning entropy.... If you have 'order' and wish to define 'order', you have to consider the converse - 'disorder' and chaos - in human experiences as well as in the sciences... for disorder is immediately apparent in most human social dealings and the apparent randomness of natural events, like you tripping and breaking a leg or falling down an unforseen hole or catching an incurable disease through no fault of your own.

There may well be unknown causes for these effects as some part of a grand design or 'order', but a grand design needs a grand designer, and there is no objective evidence of such a being'entity' beyond the heart and soul of an affirmer and believer when they validate it for themselves.