juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[juantoo3]

Thank you, earl!

Now, let us see if your description is more suitable to our friends for the purposes of our discussion...

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by earl

Hmmm? to attempt to conceptually word such a grand notion as "God" in a way that doesn't trigger conceptual revulsion. Tough task, but I guess I'd say that "God" is the personified impetus and matrix, (ground and goal) of the path that continually pushes, nudges, impells us to move beyond who we take ourselves to be just the previous moment. It impells us to be both more than and other than who we thought we were; asks us, challenges us, and yet somehow supports us. In our largeness we add more of the world into us and add more to the world in the process. Less us, more Other, 'til neither us nor Other, just all this, Is/ Am. Then what? Love. Take care, Earl

Earl, although I am absolutely fascinated by your definition (and your use of language), I have to ask; is this your description a god or your definition of the concept god.

If the latter I presume that withot these attributes (or fails to produce these criteria in us) then a particular entity/being/force/personified impetus is not a god?

Once again, great post!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Of course, it is not lost on me that someone who believes God does not exist will have objections to any description of God, conceptually or otherwise, offered...

Earl popped into the discussion, and I asked him, because to that point he was a neutral party with a perspective that includes eastern non-theist (Buddhist) and western theist (Christian) perspectives. It was my hope that he could offer a more inclusive definition. Not necessarily one that atheists would agree with. Afterall, how does one define God in an agreeable way to someone who does not agree God exists...makes for a rather sticky conundrum, don't you think?

However, I am only too willing to let earl speak for himself to your question.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards again, Jaiket!

I hope you will not mind me returning to this part of a previous post:

I find it hard to agree or disagree since what you define as religion is rather alien to me.

I had thought myself to be fairly succinct as to what I meant by “religion,” in that I have defined religion in two distinct ways. I think the common definition is what I call “institutional” religion, the megalithic political constructs of human history we call by names like Christianity, Buddhism, the various forms of pantheism, etc. Perhaps that is where I seem to lose you, because for the purpose of this discussion I have focused primarily on what I have called “private” or “personal” religion. Perhaps a good close analogue would be “meme,” not in the pejorative sense, but the functional sense. It is our internal appreciation / acceptance / understanding / intuition of how we relate to and with the Grand Design / Universe / IS / reality. I cannot say when this “meme” began, but by the Neolithic age it was pervasive and systemic by all accounts I have looked into. I do not think it is unreasonable to add here, that this time I am referring to well predates institutional religion and the megalithic social structures built around them. (Unless one counts the rudimentary beginnings of institutional religion in the form of the shaman.)

It cannot have escaped you that some kind of 'god' concept (“something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of”) is something humans must possess and follow living within a society, an environment, and a universe. We are all susceptible to the laws of physics for instance and the laws of the lands.

I do not follow your logic or rationale. What negates the application of God as a concept towards the environment or the universe? Why would not the trees, rocks and stars know and appreciate the God concept, on some level? Sentience? Who are we to say what is sentient or not if we do not understand the language?

(Society is a construct of humanity, although it could as well be said that those in political power are placed as leaders by the Divine, as many institutional religions teach, which would bring even society into the fold you are describing.)

By this definition do you not believe we are all theists and therefore no such thing as an atheist exists, making our whole conversation relatively useless.

Perhaps. I suppose it depends on whether or not an atheist would equally agree that on such a level s/he is actually a theist.

I do feel the need to point out, that my purpose in this exercise is to examine what we believe we know about our past history and how it applies into our modern social constructs. To "convert" anybody is not my purpose. My beliefs are my beliefs. Historical evidence is historical evidence. Applied anthropology is anthropology. Where they coincide is where I try to reside, particularly in this discussion.

I did not advertantly raise the subject with any specific intent, other than chance comment. I did not begin this thread. But I have covered most of this, at length, with multiple contributors from many paths and outlooks, in the thread "Morality in Evolution." (There, Alexa, I couldn't resist blowing our horn! ) This thread has merely allowed a greatly condensed version of our conclusions to be applied to anthropology.

[juantoo3]

Here is a link to the thread I mentioned:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...0&page=1&pp=15

With a teaser:

"Can morality be the result of natural evolution? Or, as Gould implies, is this a matter of human psycho-social development that cannot be adequately addressed by scientific scholarship? Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific basis for their moralities? Or should the whole subject of moral development be held aside, restricted to the "magisteria" of religion?"

I don't think we ever did solve the puzzle with complete satisfaction, so by all means, I would appreciate your input, Jaiket, regarding evolution towards moral development.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Earl, although I am absolutely fascinated by your definition (and your use of language), I have to ask; is this your description a god or your definition of the concept god.

If the latter I presume that withot these attributes (or fails to produce these criteria in us) then a particular entity/being/force/personified impetus is not a god?

Once again, great post!

Does "God" not exist if we individually "fail to develop?" The Buddhists chase an Other called enlightenment/Buddha Mind; Christians an Other called God. If we find it, we see we and it never were apart. If we don't find it, has it never existed? Both traditions essentially speak of a doer making choices along the path to that Other- interesting paradox don't you think? Take care, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

"Chase an Other called '___'..." I like it,

[juantoo3]

"Arguing with a truck driver is like mud wrestling a pig...

You might win, but the pig has all the fun!"

-sign in my former dispatcher's office

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I did not advertantly raise the subject with any specific intent, other than chance comment. I did not begin this thread. But I have covered most of this, at length, with multiple contributors from many paths and outlooks, in the thread "Morality in Evolution." (There, Alexa, I couldn't resist blowing our horn! ) This thread has merely allowed a greatly condensed version of our conclusions to be applied to anthropology.

I'm here, Juan. Need some help ?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for the kind offer! Actually, I was thinking this morning of possibly beginning a new thread to pull our conclusions into an applied anthropology, to see how far our conclusions cover all of the bases. I can think of three major threads to pull from, (Morality in Evolution, Evolution Conflict, and the Languages threads). I suppose we could add other research as we find it or run into snags. And of course, invite any and all to participate. I am thinking with a lot less adversarial debate than we had here, more like collecting evidences and applying them to try to piece the puzzle together. This thread really got off to an adversarial start, I felt like I have been forced to explain myself continually. I think a thread like what I have in mind would do that explaining in a much less adversarial way.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thank you for the kind offer!

You're welcome !

Actually, I was thinking this morning of possibly beginning a new thread to pull our conclusions into an applied anthropology, to see how far our conclusions cover all of the bases. I can think of three major threads to pull from, (Morality in Evolution, Evolution Conflict, and the Languages threads).

WHAT ? A lot of work in our hands again ? It won't be easy to go through all of them. *sigh*

I suppose we could add other research as we find it or run into snags. And of course, invite any and all to participate. I am thinking with a lot less adversarial debate than we had here, more like collecting evidences and applying them to try to piece the puzzle together.

Sounds a good idea.

This thread really got off to an adversarial start, I felt like I have been forced to explain myself continually. I think a thread like what I have in mind would do that explaining in a much less adversarial way.

I got that impression from the title. I sneaked in to see what was going on.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

My point in this discussion has always been, that without a "God" concept, we would not be able to think or "see" into the future, in the sense of understanding the consequences of our actions. I

Namaste Juan,

so, it would seem that your consideration in this regards needs to be reconsidered.

if, as you assert, lack of a god concept prevents a being from cognizing the consequences of their actions, there is no possible method by which the Buddha Shakyamuni could have explained the nature of Karma. thus, your contention is not borne out by evidence, to wit, Buddhism. which most certainly posits a cause/effect relationship between dependent structures in the relative sense at any rate.

moreover, one does not need to appeal to the invisible pink unicorn or any other sort of invisible being to understand these things. Karma is more than adequate to account for this.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Burce,

No, that is not what I meant nor what I beleive. I think most people are moral whether or not they beleive in God or adhere to a religion. Actually, I think that morality has a lot more to do with mental health than with one's religous or philosophical worldview, for the most part.

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

peace,
lunamoth

perhaps this is true of Europeans, Lunamoth, but please.... the rest of the world does exist and we do have a long history of both secular views and religious views.

it simply isn't an accurate statement to proclaim that the secular paradigm arose during the European Enlightenment period.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by earl

The Buddhists chase an Other called enlightenment/Buddha Mind;

do you suppose that you can find any Sutta/Sutra foundation for this view which you have attributed to us Buddhist types?

this is a fairly common misconception of the Buddha Dharma, however, the Buddha clearly teaches that there is nothing which can be rightly regarded as the root source of phenomena or noumena, not buddhanature, not Nirvana or any other concept.

furthermore, it is not something that is outside of the individual sentient being, thus, even should your assertion be correct in its assumptions, it is incorrectly formulated in that attainment is not "here" whilst you are "there".

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so, it would seem that your consideration in this regards needs to be reconsidered.

How so?

if, as you assert, lack of a god concept prevents a being from cognizing the consequences of their actions, there is no possible method by which the Buddha Shakyamuni could have explained the nature of Karma.

Quite the contrary. I am making a leap of speculation, but either you did not read the entire thread, or you misunderstood. I have tried as best I can to illustrate the "God concept" includes Buddhism. Earl said it well, I think, in that Buddhists chase an Other called "Buddha mind," whereas theists chase an Other called "God." Either way, we are all chasing something we cannot rationally prove, but intuitively know, at least on some level. Consequences have to do more with our understanding the "cause/effect" of our actions in a future sense, *not a God dealing punishment*, as I have explained previously.

Karma is more than adequate to account for this.

Yet too, Karma must be taken on faith. It is still the search beyond ourselves to what we know exists but cannot see. It is but another way to approach the "God concept," although I knew full well you would object to my choice of terms. I stated as much earlier.

I have posed this to you before, I will ask again as I do not recall if you answered. As you have some familiarity with Christianity, more so than I with Buddhism, I would ask how you would term "God concept" in an inclusive manner for the major world faiths? How would you describe the inherent search by humanity as far back as pre-history for that "something out there" over which we have no control, and to which we are helpless and submissive?

Namaste. And Peace.