An argument against God

[Valmar]

they still attain that god is the primordial "source" of all that exists.. so I think "primordial" and "source" are probably the two qualities of god that we can all agree on.

Perhaps so... but still, "God" is far more than these two attributes bring to mind.

"God" is "Primordial" and the "Source" of All, but "God" must also be, in seeming paradox, not-"Primordial" and not-"Source", to be "God".

If "God" is All and None, with space and time, from beginning to end, "in" "It", it can't be only "Primordial", but also be One with All that are "It", without difference. "It" has no Beginning, but "It" does. "It" created All, but "It" also didn't.

Now my mind is starting to implode from the strain... feel free to point out any flaws in my logic.

 

[acacian]

No that made perfect sense I didn't think of it that way thanks Valmar!

I think regardless though those are two traits that are important considerations when pondering the idea of whether its possible for god to be a single separate deity.. they suggest something much more unhuman (not that the human is not of the fabric of god and vice versa on some level).. it seems a separate deity couldn't be both

 

[thymamai]

I think most of us here are at least intelligent and mature enough to intuitively grasp, and aesthetically appreciate.. that life is a little more complex than that.

Also.. what nen said.

 

[Old Crow]

"God" is "Primordial" and the "Source" of All, but "God" must also be, in seeming paradox, not-"Primordial" and not-"Source", to be "God".

If "God" is All and None, with space and time, from beginning to end, "in" "It", it can't be only "Primordial", but also be One with All that are "It", without difference. "It" has no Beginning, but "It" does. "It" created All, but "It" also didn't.

Perhaps it is what it is and there is nothing about it that it is not, we have clever finite minds that have depth and that is a marvel. Can we even begin to truly understand what made everything and then pretend to have the answers from a finite view.

Define God.. all we can ascribe is what we can see with our minds and hearts. It's a bit of a mystery all this suffering and I don't like it this way but it has a way of it's own, as nature is shadowed by death and decay.

There is a beauty that can be seen in it too. Maybe it had to be this way for some unseen as of yet Godly reasons.

One day I will die, the lights will go out and perhaps I will be no more. That's just as hard to envision, but... it's the same place I was before I got here.

I just can't remember past lives or anything beyond this life without getting all religious about it.....:!:

Whats with me.. that puts me here? That for now is between me and my personal God.

 

[dragonrider]

We can debate this and that trait of god.. but one thing that is difficult for anybody to deny is that something very mysterious has brought the universe into existence - and that is imo, the heart of the debate on god.

I feel the same way.

I just think it is very important to base our ethics as much as possible on what we cán be sure of. Ethics in the end boils down, not to what we do want to allow for, but on what we don't want to. Or to put it differently, in the end it is all about what can justify the use of force. Violence.

Sometimes, the use of violence is definately justified. For instance in cases of self-defense.

But i think, the use of violence should Always be based, as much as possible, on things we know. I don't see how one could ever justify violence on what's nothing more than a hunch. "i have a hunch that god wants X", "i have the feeling that the meaning of the universe is X", "it seems to me that life is supposed to X" How could sentences like that ever provide a solid base for the use of force. Because in all those cases, we could replace X, without there being any good argument against doing so, just as well for "not-X".

Sometimes, unfortunately, violence is nessecary. But there should Always be realy good arguments for it, and never something that is essentially nothing more than a hunch. Religion, in my view, just cannot provide these arguments.

 

[Old Crow]

Maybe whats going on is something? has offered us some wings.. flying is a fine art and it's all mixed up with our mind games.

Suffering is the mother of all wings..

We learn to fly.. or we should keep trying.

I'm in love with wings.. but go figure on your own terms.... I'm all over the sky as it is..

 

[Valmar]

Perhaps it is what it is and there is nothing about it that it is not, we have clever finite minds that have depth and that is a marvel. Can we even begin to truly understand what made everything and then pretend to have the answers from a finite view.

Define God.. all we can ascribe is what we can see with our minds and hearts. It's a bit of a mystery all this suffering and I don't like it this way but it has a way of it's own, as nature is shadowed by death and decay.

There is a beauty that can be seen in it too. Maybe it had to be this way for some unseen as of yet Godly reasons.

It personally suspect it is all this way because it provides our souls the greatest opportunities for growth. The souls of all physically-incarnated beings and also of those that aren't, but choose to interact with us physically-incarnated beings.

One day I will die, the lights will go out and perhaps I will be no more. That's just as hard to envision, but... it's the same place I was before I got here.

Your ego will be no more... and then you be left wondering why you worried and feared so much in the first place.

We all chose to come here to grow, from the birds, to the cats, to the plants, to the insects, to the numerous bacteria...

Is our Higher Self, our Soul, the God of our fragile, desperate egos, in some sense?

 

[Old Crow]

Not sure if it was all of my choosing being here.. but moving along with it either way.

Ego, duality, non duality... In truth.. I'm not so enlightened, but I can see without to much ado about it that we are all somewhat the same in essence/spirit?

God or what ever drawn us out could be more... the point could have other views, spirits being what they are?

I Will die.. but who can say I will never see my son again, or my father. It saddens me when it is all washed away as my Ego desires. It might be this way.. but who has the right to say it's not some other way.

It's all still open the way I see it... until some guru crashes in. Are they not a bit like priests telling me like it is.

I will get there one day because it's just about all I think about at times. No one is going to fool me....not even me!

I feel like a sugar cube in water dissolving.. however, my sweetness will remain as the Goddess sips her tea..:want:

 

[Old Crow]

Do Buddhists Believe in God?

Sometimes a student will ask me how everything in this world got started... "If you don’t have God in Buddhism then who or what caused the universe?"

When the Buddha was asked how the world started, he kept silent. In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death. In this world and in all worlds, there are many beginnings and ends. The model of life used in Buddhism has no starting place... It just keeps going and going.

Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about.

I hope you can see that God is not what Buddhism is about... Suffering is... And if you want to believe in God, as some Buddhists do, I suppose it's OK. But, Buddhist's don't believe God can end suffering. Only the teaching's of the Buddha can help us end suffering through wisdom and the activity of compassion.

In his whole life and in all his teachings the Buddha never said anything about the One God of the desert.

A wise man once said:

1. I do not take it to be true; 2. I do not take it to be false; 3. I do not say you're wrong;
4. I do not not say you're right; 5. I do not say it is true or false; 6. It is both wrong and right, true and false at the same time.

Such is the dilemma of relative truth. It is just the finger pointing.