The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[cottage]

OKARA, June 7: An aged man lost his life by diving in front of a train to save a child here on Saturday night.

Reports said a child was crossing the track opposite the Sheikh Basti area ignorant of the train coming towards him. An aged man, who was standing there, dived and threw the child, but himself was crushed.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/08/nat24.htm
​

A few other examples:
Police identify Detroit man who died while saving drowning boy - Topix

Man Dies Saving Friend's Child From Drowning - wcbstv.com

Man Dies After Saving Two Boys From Near Drowning

These are all examples of selfishness. Each has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the highest. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, all are selfish.

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also happens that he will be lauded and rewarded in kind for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will because he considers that he reasonable chance of saving the women – and himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. Anxiety results! But he can shout, call out for help and possibly find some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree.

We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for God are first giving consideration to the self: for God must logically come second.

 

[Willamena]

What an odd thing to say!

The Buddhist removes the self, and so removes selfish, selfist acts.

 

[Willamena]

What I am saying is that there is no such thing as selflessness. If there is, then please provide an example.

Any monastic religion.

 

[cottage]

Any monastic religion.

Nope. If fact I'm tempted to say especially not any monastic order, for reasons that are fairly obvious.

 

[McBell]

These are all examples of selfishness. Each has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the highest. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, all are selfish.

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also happens that he will be lauded and rewarded in kind for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will because he considers that he reasonable chance of saving the women – and himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. Anxiety results! But he can shout, call out for help and possibly find some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree.

We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for God are first giving consideration to the self: for God must logically come second.

If you say so.

 

[sojourner]

Secondly, to demand proof of a thing's existence is nonsensical.

Funny how it isn't the believers that are demanding proof.

 

[sojourner]

Love it how you've all managed to turn God into a vapid propositional concept.
The rest of us are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Willamena]

Nope. If fact I'm tempted to say especially not any monastic order, for reasons that are fairly obvious.

What obvious reasons are those?

 

[Thief]

If you say so.

I read the stories for which you posted links.
Thank you.

"Greater love than this, has no man....but he that would lay down his life for another."

 

[Willamena]

I read the stories for which you posted links.
Thank you.

"Greater love than this, has no man....but he that would lay down his life for another."

Sounds like good material for a signature.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

These are all examples of selfishness. Each has a selfish motive or a selfish element, which is to say the self is logically prior in and to every action from the lowest animal life forms to the highest. The she-cat that flies at a dog many times her size to protect her kittens, and gets savaged as a result; the drowning mother who holds her baby's head above water, putting he baby's life before her own, and dying as a result; the kind people who go out of their way to help elderly persons to cross the road, all are selfish.

A man passing by a river sees a woman swimming and struggling furiously against a strong current. The man has immediate sympathy for the woman’s predicament; he can imagine himself in that situation. Anxiety results. If he jumps in and saves her from drowning he will assuage his anxiety. It is also happens that he will be lauded and rewarded in kind for his brave action. But if he does nothing, and the woman drowns, he may hold himself responsible for her death, or others may accuse him of failing to help the women. Anxiety results. Now, if he jumps in and goes to her aid it will because he considers that he reasonable chance of saving the women – and himself! He wouldn’t jump into a river knowing that he would drown, for that would be pointless. The woman is drowning, but the man can’t swim! That is a truly dreadful predicament for him to be in. Anxiety results! But he can shout, call out for help and possibly find some object for the women to cling on to, or he might reach out to her with a branch or something similar. And all the while he’s doing those things he is assuaging his fears. If the woman drowns he can say to himself, ‘I did all I possibly could under the circumstances’ and his peers would agree.

We cannot consider others before considering ourselves, and ‘doing the right thing’ by our fellow men is just one such necessary consideration among many. So all our instincts and reactions are self-centred. Even those who give up their lives for God are first giving consideration to the self: for God must logically come second.

I will usually help someone out because 1. I want to 2. because I usually have genuine concern for another persons welfare.
I will help my 80 year old neighbor push his car out of a snow bank because I am concerned for his safety and well being. There is no ulterior motive behind my helping other people out.

I think you need to look at the definition of selfish.
Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.
devoted to others' welfare or interest and not one's own

 

[Falvlun]

While all our actions may subconsciously be selfish, I think it's pretty apparent that we conciously choose to do selfless acts. I mean, if you don't realize that saving Bobby from drowning is only to assauge your own anxiety, then the concious reasons you went in after the kid were selfless. And I think that's what counts.

Selflessness, particularly in regards to kids, might even have some evolutionary support. Afterall, for humans, we are better able to survive if we are in a group, so we need some sort of social skills to allow the forming and maintaining of groups. Those include denying the self now and again.

 

[cottage]

I will usually help someone out because 1. I want to 2. because I usually have genuine concern for another persons welfare.
I will help my 80 year old neighbor push his car out of a snow bank because I am concerned for his safety and well being. There is no ulterior motive behind my helping other people out.

I think you need to look at the definition of selfish.
Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.
devoted to others' welfare or interest and not one's own

Sure. I am aware of how selfishness is defined. My argument is that regard for the self must always come first in order to regard others. This doesn't of course mean that there can be no generous or altruistic actions but only that the actions are not without a selfish element.

In a previous discussion on the subject a poster described how one foggy night he stopped his car to remove part of a fallen tree that was partially blocking the road. That, he said, was an unselfish act. My response was that he perceived himself to be doing a good deed, which was a reward in itself. Back came the response that since he had nothing to gain by removing the obstruction his action had no personal benefit. He was, he said, simply removing the tree so some other driver wouldn't run into it. My reply was that by volunteering this example of his selfless actions he was in fact demonstrating my point.

 

[cottage]

While all our actions may subconsciously be selfish, I think it's pretty apparent that we conciously choose to do selfless acts. I mean, if you don't realize that saving Bobby from drowning is only to assauge your own anxiety, then the concious reasons you went in after the kid were selfless. And I think that's what counts.

Selflessness, particularly in regards to kids, might even have some evolutionary support. Afterall, for humans, we are better able to survive if we are in a group, so we need some sort of social skills to allow the forming and maintaining of groups. Those include denying the self now and again.

I entirely agree that we consciously choose to do the acts. Where I disagree is that the acts are selfless. In your second paragraph I think you are correct in identifying an innate need. But again, I disagree with your conclusion in respect of denying the self. I would say the opposite is the case.

Earlier I gave an example of a drowning mother who in holding her baby's head above water died as a result. In this she was not acting selflessly but selfishly, answering her selfish maternal instincts. Many parents would willingly give up their lives for their children, but they wouldn't willingly give up their lives for the children of others. So the human mother is no different to the she-cat who dies defending her kittens against a large and aggressive dog.

 

[autonomous1one1]

..."Greater love than this, has no man....but he that would lay down his life for another."

:clap and for Mestemia and others for 'unselfishness.'

Yes, I quite understand what it is you are saying. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as selflessness. If there is, then please provide an example.

Greetings. Some feel that love is a path to unselfishness, Cottage. One can realize a union with another such that one does totally unselfish acts on the others behalf. Because of the realization of oneness, Enlightened being develops a different type of love in addition to this. This love might be termed 'agape' love and may be considered to be unconditional and universal unity with others and aimed for their behalf. If you wish to apply your 'law of selfishness' to the Enlightened please use the correct meaning of 'self' - the TrueSelf who includes all.

Regards.

 

[cottage]

:clap and for Mestemia and others for 'unselfishness.'

Greetings. Some feel that love is a path to unselfishness, Cottage. One can realize a union with another such that one does totally unselfish acts on the others behalf. Because of the realization of oneness, Enlightened being develops a different type of love in addition to this. This love might be termed 'agape' love and may be considered to be unconditional and universal unity with others and aimed for their behalf. If you wish to apply your 'law of selfishness' to the Enlightened please use the correct meaning of 'self' - the TrueSelf who includes all.

Regards.

Love is of course a necessary biological response, a way of bringing two humans together for the act of procreation, and also nature's way of protecting infants. And there is no 'oneness' in my view. Couples who have been in committed and affectionate relationships for many years often become alike in their tastes and views, but they remain individuals in every sense of the word. There is not, and cannot be, a phenomenon that is 'unselfishness'. The prior self is what enables us to exist at all: we couldn't get through a single day without regarding our selfish needs before the needs of others.

We note that the terms 'Enlightened' and 'True Self' are capitalised, and that demonstrates superiority and importance, answering a need to satisfy the self and attain a happy state of mind. All very human, and all very selfish.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Love is of course a necessary biological response, a way of bringing two humans together for the act of procreation, and also nature's way of protecting infants. And there is no 'oneness' in my view. Couples who have been in committed and affectionate relationships for many years often become alike in their tastes and views, but they remain individuals in every sense of the word. There is not, and cannot be, a phenomenon that is 'unselfishness'. The prior self is what enables us to exist at all: we couldn't get through a single day without regarding our selfish needs before the needs of others.

There is more to love than biological response (if understanding of what you mean is correct). For pointers, recall your Christian days where you read that Jesus said to 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'love your enemies.'

We note that the terms 'Enlightened' and 'True Self' are capitalised, and that demonstrates superiority and importance, answering a need to satisfy the self and attain a happy state of mind. All very human, and all very selfish.

Perhaps 'importance,' Cottage, but not 'superiority;' but they are really capitalized to distinguish them, to make sure they stand out from other uses of these words, and to insure continuity of our discussion and thought on the exact same realities. The capitalization in no way has return to a finite self.

Best Wishes.

 

[cottage]

There is more to love than biological response (if understanding of what you mean is correct). For pointers, recall your Christian days where you read that Jesus said to 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'love your enemies.'

Perhaps 'importance,' Cottage, but not 'superiority;' but they are really capitalized to distinguish them, to make sure they stand out from other uses of these words, and to insure continuity of our discussion and thought on the exact same realities. The capitalization in no way has return to a finite self.

Best Wishes.

'Recall my Christian days'? (!) Being an Englishman I am, I suppose, what could be called a cultural Christian, as the UK's laws and institutions follow Christian tradition, and we have some of the finest 11th century churches in Europe, of which I'm proud. However I am not, and never have been a Christian in the sense of being a believer.

Those quotes from the Bible are platitudes, and the expressed intent certainly don't owe its inception to Christianity or any religions. Platitudes or not, it would of course be extraordinarily callous of me to dismiss those well-meaning sentiments since they express worthy aims. But the fact of the matter is we don't love our enemies and we do not love our neigbour (or anyone else for that matter) as ourself. I argue that however deep we mediate and attempt to throw off our corporeal needs, we cannot get away from what we are, not biologically and not logically.

 

[autonomous1one1]

'Recall my Christian days'? (!) Being an Englishman I am, I suppose, what could be called a cultural Christian, as the UK's laws and institutions follow Christian tradition, and we have some of the finest 11th century churches in Europe, of which I'm proud. However I am not, and never have been a Christian in the sense of being a believer.

Those quotes from the Bible are platitudes, and the expressed intent certainly don't owe its inception to Christianity or any religions. Platitudes or not, it would of course be extraordinarily callous of me to dismiss those well-meaning sentiments since they express worthy aims. But the fact of the matter is we don't love our enemies and we do not love our neigbour (or anyone else for that matter) as ourself. I argue that however deep we mediate and attempt to throw off our corporeal needs, we cannot get away from what we are, not biologically and not logically.

Aah. 'Cultural Christian' is close enough to be familiar with the words and one sees that you have your own placement of value on them. No need for me to express disagreement again, its already been said. Let one note in response to your last sentence (greyed) that the meditation is to realize truly what and who one is. Such realization is more powerful than 'corporeal needs.'
Regards

 

[autonomous1one1]

Love is of course a necessary biological response, a way of bringing two humans together for the act of procreation, and also nature's way of protecting infants. ........

Greetings. Correct if wrong, Cottage, but it seems that your comments on love refer to one or two types of love while for the rest of us there is a deep and rich set of meanings that includes much more. Just a precursory look in Wikipedia points this out. Here is a selected quote:

" As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love[2] to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love.[3] Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts."

If you care to explore selfless love further, check out the Christian Agape, Sufi Ishq, Buddhist Metta, and Hindu Prema among other types.

Regards,
a..1