can you proove there isn't a deity?

[NobodyYouKnow]

I shall rise to this challenge.

As a Hindu Advaitin, we believe/accept a non-dual version of a 'deity' as being the Supreme Soul (Brahman) and the human Ego ('I') becomes merged within it when Moksha (Salvation) occurs.

Before Moksha, God is worshiped in deity form (if God is worshiped at all - one can just as 'easily' attain Moksha through Hatha Yoga or as an Atheist).

You don't have to actually believe in God to attain the 'God-state'. It happens automatically through certain practices.

Before this happens, there is a deity. After this happens, there is no deity...the deity does not exist, nor did it ever exist.

After God was done making us in His Image, we began to make God in our own...therefore, the deity doesn't exist as being separate from us.

If you don't believe in a deity, it does not exist and if you do, it does. It's that simple.

 

[Mycroft]

Never mind!

 

[1robin]

*chuckles*

I set that one up for ya...

I will take all the help I can get.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you don't believe in a deity, it does not exist and if you do, it does. It's that simple.

Wait, so if we believe in something then it exists? Cool! So, if I believe that my playboy playmate wife and $10 billion mansion yet, then they do? Yippee!

 

[1robin]

I shall rise to this challenge.

As a Hindu Advaitin, we believe/accept a non-dual version of a 'deity' as being the Supreme Soul (Brahman) and the human Ego ('I') becomes merged within it when Moksha (Salvation) occurs.

Before Moksha, God is worshiped in deity form (if God is worshiped at all - one can just as 'easily' attain Moksha through Hatha Yoga or as an Atheist).

You don't have to actually believe in God to attain the 'God-state'. It happens automatically through certain practices.

Before this happens, there is a deity. After this happens, there is no deity...the deity does not exist, nor did it ever exist.

After God was done making us in His Image, we began to make God in our own...therefore, the deity doesn't exist as being separate from us.

If you don't believe in a deity, it does not exist and if you do, it does. It's that simple.

There is an incoherence in Hinduism I wondered if you can clear up.

If the goal of Karma and re-incarnation is to perfect ones self so they can merge into divinity or something similar then should we all not have perfect recollection of past lives. (Why do only a few kooks under hypnosis claim to remember fragments of their past lives? If I have no knowledge whatever from my past lives then in what way can I take lessons from them and improve on them? Do the Cows that are a Hindu's ancestors know where they screwed up so they can get it right in the pasture? Also there are between a few and a few hundred millions deities in Hinduism. Which one is supplying the power to determine all this and what evidence exists that he does?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

There is an incoherence in Hinduism I wondered if you can clear up.

If the goal of Karma and re-incarnation is to perfect ones self so they can merge into divinity or something similar then should we all not have perfect recollection of past lives. (Why do only a few kooks under hypnosis claim to remember fragments of their past lives? If I have no knowledge whatever from my past lives then in what way can I take lessons from them and improve on them? Do the Cows that are a Hindu's ancestors know where they screwed up so they can get it right in the pasture? Also there are between a few and a few hundred millions deities in Hinduism. Which one is supplying the power to determine all this and what evidence exists that he does?

When it comes to the Hindu belief, even I am 'iffy' about the notions of Karma and Reincarnation. These concepts just don't make any sense to me either.

The way they explain 'Soul Memory' is that the physical body has 5 sheaths (Suriras) and the memory of previous lives is stored in one of those, apart from our conscious memory of previous lives.

They say that if the soul is already 'pure' by previous actions, no conscious memory of it is necessary, because the 'Soul knows these things'.

I'm probably not the best one to ask, because Karma and Reincarnation do not form any part of my core beliefs.

I just believe that we have this one life and we either realise God in this life or we do not...if there's a 'next life' and I am wrong about it, the intention will be just the same...to either realise God in that lifetime...or not.

Also there are between a few and a few hundred millions deities in Hinduism. Which one is supplying the power to determine all this and what evidence exists that he does?

In the end, the 'Supreme Deity' is called Brahman (no matter which of the thousand Deities one worships)...it's like 'all roads lead to Rome', so it makes no difference which one 'supplies the power' because one can say 'all do' and 'none do' simultaneously..

...such is the contradictory nature of Hinduism.

I just love and worship Siva God and I trust He will take care of all this for me.

 

[ruffen]

i notice some people who are 100% convinced there can't be any kind of deity. but how can you be so certain? rather than just not be so sure.
what solid proof do you have there is no chance of there being some kind of deity that maybe you are just not aware of?

I cannot prove that there is no deity, BUT one can prove that:

- a deity didn't create the Universe (science is not quite there yet)
- a deity didn't create the Earth (gravity did)
- a deity didn't create life on Earth (science is not quite there yet)
- a deity didn't create humans (evolution is well understood)

As for earlier deity concepts we also know that god or gods do not cause:
- earthquakes
- comets
- rain or draught
- storms
- lightning and thunder
- disease
- famine
- etc

So the God that is claimed to have caused any of the mentioned points is disprovable.

In my opinion every god is a God-of-the-gaps, because every supposed work by that God (like creating the Universe, or us, or doing miracles or in any way manipulating objects and/or forces inside the Universe) must necessarily depend on a lack of knowledge of the real reason. And if God isn't thought to be able to manipulate any objects or forces in our Universe, then he is definitely not omnipotent - he's not potent at all.

And most of the gaps have been closed by science, so now God has retreated from just behind the clouds, to deep space, and must now reside outside space and time, even.

So while we cannot be sure that a God does not exist, that God will have to be so subtle or distant that we cannot detect him or any of his supposed work, and that God can therefore be assumed to be non-existent.

Any claim of what God is supposed to be able to do (or is supposed to have done in the past) is scientifically testable. So far every test has been negative, ie. God is not evident in any of humankind's endeavours to learn about how nature works.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I will take all the help I can get.

When you get a chance is be interested in your thoughts on my earlier post...
#226 I think...

 

[1robin]

When you get a chance is be interested in your thoughts on my earlier post...
#226 I think...

Certainly, but I am unclear which posts you are referring to. Can you give me the post#. I will get to it pretty soon if you can.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

certainly, but i am unclear which posts you are referring to. Can you give me the post#. I will get to it pretty soon if you can.

#226

 

[1robin]

When it comes to the Hindu belief, even I am 'iffy' about the notions of Karma and Reincarnation. These concepts just don't make any sense to me either.

The way they explain 'Soul Memory' is that the physical body has 5 sheaths (Suriras) and the memory of previous lives is stored in one of those, apart from our conscious memory of previous lives.

They say that if the soul is already 'pure' by previous actions, no conscious memory of it is necessary, because the 'Soul knows these things'.

I'm probably not the best one to ask, because Karma and Reincarnation do not form any part of my core beliefs.

That was a reasonable response. If they do not, then what do your core beliefs about the afterlife contain?

I just believe that we have this one life and we either realise God in this life or we do not...if there's a 'next life' and I am wrong about it, the intention will be just the same...to either realise God in that lifetime...or not.

What is the Hindu standard of knowing God? How familiar must I be? What criteria is used to determine if I met the standard?

In the end, the 'Supreme Deity' is called Brahman (no matter which of the thousand Deities one worships)...it's like 'all roads lead to Rome', so it makes no difference which one 'supplies the power' because one can say 'all do' and 'none do' simultaneously..

If they say all can, and none do then you have hit upon the core reason why eastern theology and philosophy does not work. Truth is an exclusive category. If anyone makes two self contradictory claims to truth they have no choice but to be wrong about one. If wrong about one they do not have a divine source unless it was a malevolent one. I did however understand your point.

...such is the contradictory nature of Hinduism.

I just love and worship Siva God and I trust He will take care of all this for me.

Why would you find value in contradiction and incoherence. If I found contradictory messages in the Bible I would have used that as a reason to dismiss it. Malevolence, incoherence, and irrationality produce contradiction.

 

[1robin]

Hola...

Per you request I am responding to this. Sorry I missed it.

Haven't been involved in this thread for a while, but I've been lurking, as I'm wont to do on occasion. I read through the link, and found it approachable enough, but far from convincing, to tell the truth.

I can tell you exactly why it is that is unsatisfying. We hate suffering, pain, and misery. There are two components to the problem of evil. A philosophical one about properties and purpose, but there is another half that is pure emotional. Craig (I think I used Craig) can prove to a certainty that the Biblical God and evil can both exist without God's compromising his nature or purpose (purpose is the reason evil exists anyway). What can't be resolved is our revulsion over evil. Emotions do not have a rational and evinced based foundation. That is the reason that any boxer or debater trying to win at all costs will attempt to get the other mad.

Philosophy can eliminate any incompatibility between God and evil. (though God will eventually eliminate all evil and suffering).

What can't be done is make that conclusion satisfy our hatred of evil and suffering. Just like physical pain is hated but also has a purpose so does evil.

I understand you're looking for a more focused argument to respond to, so I'll offer a single point as a starting point.
In terms of the probabilistic argument put forth, there are 4 argument discussed, with the second of these being as follows;


It then shows a series of salient points around why Christian theism is logically compatible with evil. Each of the 4 (further) points raised around this concept focus entirely on the impact of such evils on humans, and (in broadbrush summary) indicate that these evils may have flow on effects we are unaware of in terms of drawing people to God. Further, that happiness is not the point of life, but instead it is the bringing of people to God that is the point.

I have a bunch of reactions to that, but to be fair to Craig, he does make the point early that he attempting to refute the arguments from a logical point of view, rather than a humane one.

That is true. Craig uses cold calculated reason to determine the nature of things. His philosophy is lethal to arguments from emotion or sentimentality but is has no ability to make them go away. Craig is also one of the most compassionate and warm debaters I know of but ideas are resolved best when emotion is not included.

But it still leaves me wondering about simple things like the Emerald Cockroach Wasp and it's method of providing sustenance for it's young. This might be a petty evil in the scheme of things, but I can discern no reason for this in the 4 arguments provided.

Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me add one to the 4 I do not think Craig covered. The Bible records that nature was made perfect in the beginning and went horribly wrong when Adam sinned. I do not know if the story is literal or allegory but what is clear is that at one time God supervised and maximized nature for our benefit. Once we rebelled then to illustrate the cost of rejecting God he took his supervising control off of nature and let it run by cold natural law alone except for rare intercessions. He did so to indicate the nature of rebellion. He wanted to make sure man realized just how wrong and terrible the nature of his rebellion and sin is. That is where weird things like you wasp might come in. God did not make that wasp the way it is. He stopped supervising nature and it was allowed to change and (evolve) on it's own. This produced teddy bear like panda's and things that look like they are from a nightmare. The garden of Eden (whether a place or a state) was over and we were exposed to whatever nature produced. God judges in two ways. Individually and corporately. If you find it bizarre that God would use tragedy and suffering to produce faith just think back a bit. Most of us spend al our time thinking about what play station game came out, what is going on at the club, what the president is doing. The few times even those that hate the idea of God will seriously consider him is at a funeral, when their drunk driving cost a life, or when they are diagnosed with a serious illness. It takes us out of this world and makes us consider things beyond it. I am not saying God directly kills us, makes us crash while driving drunk, or gave us an illness (not in general anyway). I am saying his purposes made him allow a world that includes those things because we are so hard headed that is the extremes necessary to wake us up. BTW I did not look at your link (I detest insects) but my response should have included whatever they do and it's possible explanation.

 

[Benoni]

Adams fall was not Adam's choice it was God's Will.

 

[1robin]

Adams fall was not Adam's choice it was God's Will.

I swear you have to have the most unique Bible in history. Why did God bother telling Adam not to eat of the tree then? Why did he not just create him sinful and rebellious? How can anyone love a God that gives freewill that is not free?

 

[Iti oj]

I swear you have to have the most unique Bible in history. Why did God bother telling Adam not to eat of the tree then? Why did he not just create him sinful and rebellious? How can anyone love a God that gives freewill that is not free?

Why did got make the tree in the first place, if not to be eaten.
Also if god is all knowing he knew what would happen and what he would do. If God had a plan how was mans fall not apart of it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I swear you have to have the most unique Bible in history. Why did God bother telling Adam not to eat of the tree then? Why did he not just create him sinful and rebellious?

I'm not sure how that option is worse than the alternative: that God was so unwise that he couldn't foresee what was going to happen.

How can anyone love a God that gives freewill that is not free?

How can an all-knowing God give free will that is free?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I swear you have to have the most unique Bible in history. Why did God bother telling Adam not to eat of the tree then? Why did he not just create him sinful and rebellious? How can anyone love a God that gives freewill that is not free?

Who put the tree there??

 

[McBell]

Who put the tree there??

IMO, it is not just that God put the tree there, but that god put the tree there and told Adam not to eat from it when he knew before he even started creating anything that they would eat from said tree...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, it is not just that God put the tree there, but that god put the tree there and told Adam not to eat from it when he knew before he even started creating anything that they would eat from said tree...

... and also created the serpent and put it there, knowing that Eve would be convinced by it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

IMO, it is not just that God put the tree there, but that god put the tree there and told Adam not to eat from it when he knew before he even started creating anything that they would eat from said tree...

And knowing full well that Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, having never eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.