Why do we need a God?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 25, 2012.

?

Do we need [there to be] God?

  1. Yes

    35.7%
  2. No

    64.3%
  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    sure

    Hence it becomes either "we have a need for god" or "we don't have a need for anything except to have no ego" (so we have a need for nothing since there is no "we" so to speak)

    So you would expect an explanation on why we need god to be bereft of any tool-like explanations on the role god plays in fulfilling our needs?
    And that descriptions of how "we don't need an ego" are not conceptions?
    (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)

    i am simply presenting the basic theoretical outline of both - its a whole different kettle of fish if one wants to start talking about whether an idea is doable or not

    So your initial response to problems in this world is to go stimulate your material brain?



    Meanwhile your molars rot ...
    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    its not just us its the things we are attached to - hence the indubitable problem of (material) existence is attachment to things taht will shortly cease to exist.

    You can try and ply that one simply has to not be attached to things but you have to do way, way way way more work than simply pretend its the consequence of a mature outlook to life.
    and lo and behold, what sort of existence do we have?
    So death of all conscious life forms solves all problems.
    Brilliant
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    the problem is that the mind doesn't deliver demands to the senses that are doable - hence the duplicity of human nature arises .. or even dogs for that matter since conflict in fulfilling the mind's desires is the constant companion of all living entities

    IOW eastern thought on the subject and jesus's teachings about the kingdom of god or even buddhist notions of surmounting the ego are most certainly not about "If you are tired then sleep " or "if you are hungry then eat".
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't know about Jesus, but Zen is very much about that. All this seeking is for the student, the novice, the sincere and persevering monk. The end of seeking is a refocus on the immediate.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    And when those immediate desires are not achievable what do you have?
    conflict?
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I said nothing of desire. Desire is at the root of suffering.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    which brings us back to the notion of "ego is the root of all evil" since even pursuing what is merely immediately required can give rise to incredible suffering

    IOW we are back to the two options of either accepting a diminished ego or a transcendental consciousness as a solution to suffering in the material world
    :shrug:
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Can the senses operate without desire?
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Some people fret when at the mention of atheism, someone brings up Stalin as an example.
    But Stalin really is a good example of atheism: his policy of No man, no problem is precisely what atheists are arguing for.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So, what are your solutions to some very material problems connected to teeth, for example:

    1. What to think of when the dentist is drilling into your teeth?
    Those are some of the longest five minutes in your life, and you have to think of something in that ever so stressful time.

    2. How to talk yourself out of eating (too much) sweets?
    Craving sweets can be very intense. How do you talk yourself out it, or other things you can do to get yourself not to eat (too much) sweets? What if all that well-meaning medical advice on the harmfulness of eating sweets just doesn't convince you, at least not in the heat of the moment?


    E-How along with WikiHow and other similar sites are examples of a specific way of problem-solving.
    Read some articles, and if after a while, they don't start to seem odd to you, then I don't know what to say ...
     
  14. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838
    Tell that to Africa, or the rest of the world before 1950.
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Of course you don't have that bias.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    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?
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    And you continue to offer the alternative that renders the moot any "need" for God.
    "You need A! But B works as well... so actually you don't need A."
    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.
    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.
    And your line of argument still relegates "God" merely to one of such concepts, what to speak of the reality of that concept.
    "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.
    Have you ever tried to do anything without your brain being stimulated? 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.
    Which is a material problem with a material solution, so I really can't see the purpose of this line of comment.

    And why is this a problem? You keep harping on that it is, yet I fail to see it.
    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.
    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.
    For what is "God" needed?
    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.
    Sure, there are things that we interpret as problems, but these are material in nature and material in solution... even if cerebral.
    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?"
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Oh. Have you read Quine's "Two dogmas of empricism"?
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Yup, no man, no problem, and no woman, no cry!
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    I've heard of it, but am not familiar with it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I am merely pointing out one of LG's fallacies - that what may apply to a part does not necessarily hold for the whole.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    LG's reasoning is fallacious only if we take for granted that the material is all there is to existence.

    Although if the material is all there is to existence, you still need to explain how some people fall into the illusion or delusion that there should be more to life than the material.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Whether we take that for granted or not is irrelevant to the fallacy I pointed out: it is still fallacious to apply a perceived property of a part to the whole.
    It's not delusion (at least in the way I understand delusion), as there would be no evidence to the contrary.
    Further, the demand for an immediate explanation opens you up to accepting a God of the gaps.
    It should be sufficient to say "I/we don't yet know"... but I am sure there is some psychological difference between such people... no two brains work in precisely the same way, even if they appear to at the gross level.
    You may as well ask "Why are some people ambitious and others not?" or "Why are some people more content with their own company and others more content with others?"
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    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.

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


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

Share This Page