Existence of god

[cole grey]

In a one-lifetime conception, which includes the mainstream Christian only-one-lifetime-for-action conception, this advice is perverse. And so is the giver of such advice.

and the alternative is to do nothing and wait for the next lifetime? You have to do something, why not just make the best choice one can and see if it works out? if it doesn't work, change, as most people do in their lifetimes. There is no other way to live, because doing nothing is still doing something.

In a one-lifetime conception, mistakes are either fatal, or irrelevant.If fatal, people will be paralyzed by trying to figure out what is "the right thing" and thus won't do anything, thus ensuring the fatal outcome.

most people are not paralyzed, so for most people this does not apply. Probably because most mistakes are simply not fatal. Humans are so damn resilient, i am not sure why their souls wouldn't be able to make up for following false trails now and then.

If irrelevant, there is no point in deliberately trying anything, as things will work out the way they will regardless what one does.

unfortunately, people have been tasked with the job of making the earth a meaningful place to live, whether by default, due to our ability, or by design. That doesn't mean there is, or is not, inherent meaning, but i do think we are supposed to either find the inherent meaning or create it, whichever the case is. Saying, "this place is meaningless, so that is it", is denying that responsibility. If it is meaningless then we have to make it meaningful, and not just wait for the universe to be something it isn't.

So either way, a one-lifetime conception is pernicious, a no-win situation.

i find fault with a few of the premises above, and i don't see it that way.

It's more than just that. It's that the whole notion of preaching to outsiders of a religion is inherently abusive.

i think it can be done in a way which is not abusive. And of course there is the alternative which is to never offer any ideas to anyone. But I think the key word is "preaching". Maybe preaching is impossible to do correctly, but i don't really know about that, and it was never my thing anyway, so i prefer to leave that question up to the preachers.

 

[wynn]

and the alternative is to do nothing and wait for the next lifetime?

No.

You have to do something, why not just make the best choice one can and see if it works out? if it doesn't work, change, as most people do in their lifetimes. There is no other way to live, because doing nothing is still doing something.

I'm talking about the consequences of having a definitive stance on whether this one lifetime is all there is or not.

most people are not paralyzed, so for most people this does not apply. Probably because most mistakes are simply not fatal. Humans are so damn resilient, i am not sure why their souls wouldn't be able to make up for following false trails now and then.

In a one-lifetime conception, mistakes are fatal. I'm talking first and foremost about making a mistake in one's choice of religion. In a one-lifetime conception, one has to choose the "right religion", or one is doomed.

i find fault with a few of the premises above, and i don't see it that way.

Probably because you haven't thought through to its logical conclusions what it means to have a definitive stance on whether this one lifetime is all there is or not.
Although most people don't seem to do that anyway, even though they officially hold a definitive stance one way or another.

i think it can be done in a way which is not abusive.

Maybe. I've yet to see it.

And of course there is the alternative which is to never offer any ideas to anyone. But I think the key word is "preaching".

Yes. I'm talking about preaching to outsiders of a religion, like I already said in the post you are quoting.

Maybe preaching is impossible to do correctly, but i don't really know about that, and it was never my thing anyway, so i prefer to leave that question up to the preachers.

But even just offering ideas comes with a degree of responsibility both for the one sharing an idea and the one considering it.

I find few things as frustrating as outspoken atheists and agnostics claiming it is possible to find happiness without religion - while they never actually say how this is to be accomplished.

So "offering ideas" becomes just another aspect of the power game between people, subtle, but intense. And a source of much suffering.

 

[rr6]

Life High/Vertical-- Death Low/Horizontal

IN-spirited = our first inhalation of oxygen
..resultant is that lungs expand....

OUT-spirited = our last exhalation of oxygen
..resultant is that lungs contract...

If biological life, has a physical component then Fuller states it as being high frequency and in death a very long wave ergo low frequency.

The cosmic entropic heat death, of our finite, occupied space Universe, depicts a single photon, that is very largest very long wave i.e. longest frequency photon to ever exist.

| longest wave photon

O|O = left and right skew geodesics--- 31 great circles/tubes( GrC/T ---on either side of the longest wave/frequency photon

This above scenario with simple texticon, represents the maximum exhalation-- OUT-spirited ---of our finite occupied space Universe i.e. all of the fermionic matter as become expanded( OUT ) in a very flat, very long wave, least energetic, Electro-Magnetic photon.


This is another IN-spirited part addendum to the above scenario, that is part of a greater cosmic cycle(-ing).

The seemingly two left and right geodesic sphericals are actually 8 or 16 bound/compacted as seemingly only two, and as a result of there unfolding expansion back to their visible 8 or 16 geodesic sphericals, the entropic heat death IN-spirits--- ergo inflates/expands ---as the higher frequency fermionic matter once again.

The mechanisms, the hows and whys this cycling occurs is still to be pondered by myself, just as is the exact mechanisms for gravity and why we have a 2nd law of thermodynamics, wherein energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed.

IN and OUT are complementaries, just as physical/energy/spirit-1 and metaphysical soul-2 shape/pattern/wave etc are eternally complementary to each other.

Concave-convex,

Inside-outside,

Left-right

Knowing( order )-not-knowing( seeming disorder )

r6

Gravity = contractive IN phenomena/force
EMRadiaiton = expansive OUT phenommena/force
Spirit-1 = metaphysical intention as mind/intelligence
Soul-1 = biological
Soul-2 = pattern/shape/geometry etc... ex a spiral pattern is not the medium of wood, metal etc it is the metaphysical pattern.

 

[pluto2]

There is too much pain and suffering in this world for a loving God to exist. My mother always tells me that when I ask her if there is a God. And she always tells me the same thing: that she has experienced no shred of proof that a loving God exists.

I don't think that extreme pain would exist (at all) if there was a God, yet many people and animals suffer from extreme pain.

I also don't think that death would exist if there was a loving God. Yet the fact remains that eventually all humans and animals must painfully die. And apparently also death is permanent and we can't come back from it.

So I think that if there was a loving God then extreme pain and eventual death (for all living beings on planet Earth) would not have to exist.

 

[cole grey]

In a one-lifetime conception, mistakes are fatal. I'm talking first and foremost about making a mistake in one's choice of religion. In a one-lifetime conception, one has to choose the "right religion", or one is doomed.

i disagree with that. People change religions all the time. They can start as jewish and become christian, which is a pretty radical change of perspective. New agers become buddhists become unitarians. Christians become atheists, some become muslims. And of course if a person chooses a religion, they can always drop out and become an atheist, which is obviously done all the time.

Probably because you haven't thought through to its logical conclusions what it means to have a definitive stance on whether this one lifetime is all there is or not.

i don't find your premises on the need for reincarnation faulty because i haven't thought it through, but rather because i have issues with the premises themselves. I am willing to accept the possibility that reincarnation is the only way to work out universal salvation or whatever. I have thought of it many times in the past as a viable option, but these particular premises for the argument are not leading me to your conclusion. I think if one were to show that mistakes are fatal maybe, but all we can really suppose is that some mistakes seem to be fatal, while some do not seem to be fatal, so i don't know what to do with that. Also, as humans we are either empowered or just simply required to make these choices, so i doubt a decent god is going to say, "i know you were trying to live your life well, trying to find me, or whatever me could make sense to you, and be a good person, but you were born in the wrong country, so go to hell." That is just not decent.

But even just offering ideas comes with a degree of responsibility both for the one sharing an idea and the one considering it.
I find few things as frustrating as outspoken atheists and agnostics claiming it is possible to find happiness without religion - while they never actually say how this is to be accomplished.
So "offering ideas" becomes just another aspect of the power game between people, subtle, but intense. And a source of much suffering.

of course there are people who will use even love and peace as a way to manipulate, or abuse. Atheists are like other people in that they praise rationality as a concept by which to guide life, yet fail to see their own irrationality as humans. Just like religious people who praise some processes they hardly incorporate themselves.

 

[wynn]

i disagree with that. People change religions all the time. They can start as jewish and become christian, which is a pretty radical change of perspective. New agers become buddhists become unitarians. Christians become atheists, some become muslims. And of course if a person chooses a religion, they can always drop out and become an atheist, which is obviously done all the time.

You're missing my point. If only one religion is correct, and the fact of the matter is that not all people are of that religion, then those people are doomed.
In that conception, making a mistake in one's choice of religion is fatal.

i don't find your premises on the need for reincarnation faulty because i haven't thought it through, but rather because i have issues with the premises themselves. I am willing to accept the possibility that reincarnation is the only way to work out universal salvation or whatever. I have thought of it many times in the past as a viable option, but these particular premises for the argument are not leading me to your conclusion. I think if one were to show that mistakes are fatal maybe, but all we can really suppose is that some mistakes seem to be fatal, while some do not seem to be fatal, so i don't know what to do with that.

Again, missing the point. I'm talking about principles. As things stand, we can prove neither that this one lifetime is all there is, nor that there is reincarnation. Yet the stance we take on this matter, will importantly affect how we go about our daily lives and what outlook we will have on life in general.

"i know you were trying to live your life well, trying to find me, or whatever me could make sense to you, and be a good person, but you were born in the wrong country, so go to hell."

It's precisely what the mainstream Christian conception of God is saying. It's what probably the majority of Christian preaching to people outside of (the preacher's school of) Christianity is based on.

 

[Lakon]

There is too much pain and suffering in this world for a loving God to exist. My mother always tells me that when I ask her if there is a God. And she always tells me the same thing: that she has experienced no shred of proof that a loving God exists.

I don't think that extreme pain would exist (at all) if there was a God, yet many people and animals suffer from extreme pain.

I also don't think that death would exist if there was a loving God. Yet the fact remains that eventually all humans and animals must painfully die. And apparently also death is permanent and we can't come back from it.

So I think that if there was a loving God then extreme pain and eventual death (for all living beings on planet Earth) would not have to exist.

If there is pain, then one end of it must be extreme. So you are saying there should be no pain at all .. or something that you're comfortable with .. in which case, it would hardly be pain.

Truly, I have a VERY bad toothache at the moment, but my densist can't see me till Wednesday. I'll blame God for a) my toothache, and b) my dentists prolongation of it, OK ?

Death ? If you were nothing once, you become nothing again. The middle is a bonus. What's wrong with that ?