The god fallacy

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10[SUP]10[SUP]123[/SUP][/SUP] to 1. "

Oddly enough, this is cited as proof of their own version of creation by Muslims and Christians, and now by Hindus. Consider this, the odds of something that has already happened is 1:1.

Also, dear sravna, do you know that Roger Pensrose is a self-proclaimed atheist?

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....To directly say what I mean : Ego is the cause of self destruction. How can saying this mean I am egoistic?

Dear sravna:

Here is what you said:

.... But you have to accept that you are not too big enough or smart enough to do away with God. If you start thinking like that you are sowing the seeds of self destruction.

In response I asked you this:

sravna, how are you so sure? Are you smart enough to do this? You have given a warning to Y, and by association to me as well I presume, that he is sowing the seeds of self destruction. Is it possible that your own self confidence (ego/arrogance is what you guys normally say) in your ability to see the sprouts of self destruction in us could be the seeds of your self destruction? Just asking, not saying.

Now you say, "Ego is the cause of self destruction. How can saying this mean I am egoistic?" as though it is self-evident that those who reject your theism are egotistical. All I am asking is, how are you so sure? Is it possible that those who insist their theism is a mark of humility and the atheists are arrogant and egotistical, are the ones who are bring egotistical and arrogant? This is the question you need to answer directly without making self-serving assertions and without foisting your speculations of our mindset upon us.

Thank you.

 

[sravna]

Also, dear sravna, do you know that Roger Pensrose is a self-proclaimed atheist?

Cheers!

If so, it would be interesting to know what makes him believe in Quantum mechanics for example?

 

[sarang]

I believe all the atheist scientists are like indian secularists (or pseudo secularists); public image is quite at variance with private life.

If so, it would be interesting to know what makes him believe in Quantum mechanics for example?

 

[sarang]

Right spirit.
Bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam, moodamathe

This thread started with poems and now its serious debates..you guys go on debating and I will type poems as a sort of commercial breaks sorts.

God is just behind us when we cry for help,
We feel our prayers might not reach Him,
In our panic we seek the assurance of safety,
In a moment the clouds of gloomy fears are swept away.
My soul,bathed in celestial joy,
The heaven laid bare their blue abyss.
The choicest gifts are showered upon me from all directions,
And I am lost in complete bliss.

(Atharva Veda 19.52.3)

 

[Nara]

Dear saidevo, if your answer is accepted then your own description that your God is Omnipotent and benevolent cannot hold, in other words, the challenge of Epicurus remains unanswered.

BTW, it is not a paradox as you continue to say, there is a perfectly logical answer to this riddle, and that is, there is no such omnipotent and benevolent God as the theists imagine.

In the Hindu concept, Ishvara, for all his compassion, is chiefly a god of justice who dispenses fruits of karma as karma-phala-dhAta. That should explain why Ishvara does not wipe away all karma in the world.

Justice comes after the commission of a crime/papa. An omnipotent and compassionate god will prevent this crime/papa from occurring in the first place so that there is no need to visit painful justice upon his own creation. Freewill is not the answer, God, being omnipotent, can easily dismiss freewill and take care of his creation from falling into papa and suffering if he is all compassion, I would if I had the power, even with my very limited compassion.

His omniscience--not any proclivity for lIlA--about the greater good in the three worlds is the reason for his apparantly allowing people to suffer unduly in their worldly life.

This is just religious dogma, but even under this dogma, why must a compassionate God allow suffering in this world, why not all three worlds be free of sufferring, he can do it if he wants to, afterall he is posited as omnipotent? There is no need for suffering in any world, three, or three thousand, if this God is omnipotent and compassionate.

His omnipotence lies in grace towards people who deserve it, to lift them out of their sufferings or offer them the wisdom and strength to bear the setbacks in life.

This suffers from the same problem as above. Why must a compassionate God allow some to be deserving and others to be undeserving? If I were a compassionate and omnipotent God, I would bestow perfect wisdom to all so that everyone will refrain from sin/papa and be deserving, nobody will be left behind.

In the larger scale of life in three worlds, people who appear to suffer in their earthly life is probably for a better afterlife or progress towards liberation, depending on the balance of their negative karma.

Some more religious dogma, I have already addressed this above.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Mayuram V.Sankaran.

This has reference to your post #143. I agree with you that both theists and atheists may never come around to agree mutually on concepts like karma and reincarnation.

But then as KRS has explained in his post #141, based on wrong assumptions, it is almost always the atheists who have the itch to question beliefs in the changing light of what they come to know empirically and rationally.

• In the modern world where SET (science, engineering and technology) ubiquitously rules the world, it is simplistic--and perhaps ignorance--to blame all the evils and sufferings on the concepts of religion and religious practices. And yet the atheists do it repeatedly, perhaps to reassure themselves of the soundness and security of their own concepts of godless, material and a single life for man on this planet.

• Suppose the atheists of the world unite to create a model state populated only by the completely atheistic families and ruled by SET, will there be complete happiness in that state, with no crimes or other evils, in this utopian state of atheism?

• As for your observation in post #143 that KRShNa is not around to advise us like he advised Dhritrarashtra, we have the texts MahAbhArata and Bhagavad GItA, just as the atheists and scientists have their publications which have outlived their authors.

• As for your observations in post #146, what I discuss here are just friendly conversations, since I don't consider myself well versed with the Hindu texts to engage in serious debates, nor do I have the urge to win over an atheist. In this pastime activity, I do of course learn something--on both sides of the fence.

 

[Nara]

I believe all the atheist scientists are like indian secularists (or pseudo secularists); public image is quite at variance with private life.

Right spirit.
Bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam, moodamathe

Oh my dear brother sarang, I see that you are still visiting this thread and reading the posts, will you be kind enough to stop sniping and address my post here.

I also request all members to join the discussion if they want to, but refrain from tangential posts in this thread. I believe as the OP I have the privilage to make this request.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna:

Here is what you said:


In response I asked you this:


Now you say, "Ego is the cause of self destruction. How can saying this mean I am egoistic?" as though it is self-evident that those who reject your theism are egotistical. All I am asking is, how are you so sure? Is it possible that those who insist their theism is a mark of humility and the atheists are arrogant and egotistical, are the ones who are bring egotistical and arrogant? This is the question you need to answer directly without making self-serving assertions and without foisting your speculations of our mindset upon us.

Thank you.

Dear Shri Nara,

The question of theism or atheism is not so relevant here. I just made a commonsensical observation that ego causes self destruction. Now do not ask me whether I am sure that ego always causes self destruction!. The point is you should focus more on the gist than trying to pick up some side points and debate on them.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Mr. Sarma: My response in bold letters below.

Peace, Mr. Sarma. Please write about some tangible Solutions!

Shri Yamaka sir,

Taking last first, I am not sure as to what you are asking tangible solutions for; if you have India in mind, let me submit to you that in my view India does not have any problems which will be destroying it and so India does not need any solutions, tangible or otherwise.

In order to better appreciate the situation, it is necessary that you study the story suggested by me.

Very often I read media reports here showing some foreigner or the other praising the "happiness" exhibited by the poorest sections of India, despite their poverty, wants, diseases and so on. Those people view it as something mysterious; the kind of happiness and satisfaction which eludes them despite all their physical and materialistic possessions and SET achievements being put to use for making the life of humans look like virtually heavenly, is found tangibly in the poor people of India. This is what has probably been described aptly in the "koupeena pancakam" (literally, the five stanzas of "kOvaNam").

It is this very same 'happiness' which the gullible foreigners seek to "acquire" (because, in their world view anything and everything is purchasable with money) through the many fake gurus and godmen who put themselves up as vendors of such happiness.

So, you see Shri Yamaka, the west is impoverished in terms of this kind of "happiness" and rather they should seek tangible solutions for this basic problem.

Now to the various points; my fresh comments in Blue please.

Shri Yamaka sir,

China is imho, different from India in many aspects. First, India and Bharat (the vast countryside with acute poverty and diseases being rampant) are well connected and all statistics about India will cover both India & Bharat with a good amount of accuracy. In China, the very vast rural countryside is practically cut off from the outside world and the outside world is also cut-off from those vast areas. Whatever statistics the Govt. of China puts out is what it feels is good for the nation's well-being. Even Nationmaster has to go by published statistics only and I very much doubt whether even the CIA worldfact book is capable of giving the true data on China.

There is a massive mis-information about China spread in India... most Indians are very blind as to what's happening in the NE neighbor to their peril. US has very realistic information about the whole of China taken by our spy satellites and other means. Indians can't afford to ignore China for the long term Security reasons.. Beware....

. I believe that the Assault and Murder Rate are much higher in India than China.. You need to really worry as to the REAL reason.. you just can't ignore this basic data under the mistaken notion that Crime Reporting is bad in China! I believe the Reporting is nearly the same between both countries... and the corruption in the Police and Judiciary is the same between India and China, IMO.

I doubt very much whether even the best spy satellite can identify an assault or murder on the ground, and further whether US will be so concerned as to use its spy satellites for tracking this data in China. If US does so, then it is a foolish nation, imho.

What you describe as "the basic data" is to me "unreliable data". Indians may have to watch China for their own long-term security reasons, but I don't think our Indian Government is foolish enough to formulate or devise its China policy based on the murder/assault rates in that country. LOL!

Secondly, the conclusions which you draw, viz.,Assault and murder rate has to first take the legal definitions of assault in both countries, imo. And, there is no reason in attributing atheism as the panacea for all the ills of this world; even USA was and is very much a god-believing country.

Theism is the ROOT cause for the exploding population growth in India via the Religious FATALISM: "Kadvul giveth more kids.. and Man taketh". This DENOMINATOR effect is very serious to India's growth, believe me.

In most of US, religion is a Cultural Link to the Distant Past... only about 20% are truly religious: the Evangelicals and some Baptists in the Bible Belt of the Red States in the Deep South. This is the situation in 2012. Even the conservative Republican Party is poised to nominate a Morman as their Presidential candidate, because most of the GOP are not that truly religious.

As you rightly know, China has a slightly larger population than India's and if one has to consider only the China aspect, then India's population is a certain bulwark against any future conflict which may arise between China & India. I am not sure, but my own feeling is that India's able-bodied population up to the middle age is rather poor and so, if I were to devise the policy of the country, I will not curtail population growth at this juncture, at any cost.

Your notions about religion and its effects on population is quite dated as far as India is concerned and even youngsters now generally know about condom and Family Planning. If couples opt for more children, it is their conscious decision.

I am, however, sad to note that you have misspelt "mormon" as 'morman'. If this is the level of your grasp of the subjects, it is really bad.

Though this may sound personal, it is not correct to claim that god-belief is the root cause of all problems in life, simply because in your life, fortuitously, you turned to be an atheist while in college and somehow life has been good for you. But Dhirubhai Ambani (to whom, incidentally, even you cannot hold a candle) was a very great believer in God. The Birlas were and are; they built so many Birla Mandirs. Ramnath Goenka who came to India with just only a small "lotta" to wash after defecation, built a newspaper empire and he was a God-believer. Such instances are many.

You should compare Ambanis, Birlas, Goenkas with Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Bill & Melinda Gates, Waltons and others. Not with Yamaka, who openly revolted against the Demons of God and Religion and stood his ground against all odds and still smiling! You must ask why your God Country is very poor with $1333 income per year per person? Is your God truly Omnipotent and Merciful?

I did not refer to Ambanis, etc., for comparison but to cite instances of people who were religious believers and also prospered very much financially. I do not know whether the cases like slim, buffet, etc., are comparable to these at all.

So, I will very humbly request you to sit back and think over whether what minuscule providence has helped you in your life can or will definitely aid any large population.

You should probably read the story of the "king's barber and his golden drop" from Tenali Raman stories, I will say.

You all should quit reading old stories... and wake up to the persistent questions that dog India in the past 2000 years, at least.

Indians lived in style and flair from 7000 BC till 1500 BC... then the Vedas came, Puranas came, followed by Koran and the Bible.... India's life decidedly took a wrong turn to the worse... an inexorable decline towards the bottom of the pit..... Why? Why?

Religious FATALISM and FANATICISM.......

I request you and others in this Forum to think about tangible Solutions to improve the economic situations of India as a whole: not just the India9%.

India91% is languishing w/o enough food, water and a place to go to bathroom! Why your God is ignoring most of HIS Believers? Even, after getting their Aaradana in the form of prayers, poojas and bhajans?

Because that Merciful All Knowing God is non-existent, believe me!

As I said in an earlier post, GOD is not all merciful imho. And, as stated in the beginning of this post, the poverty in India is not as bad as you portray. India will improve at its own pace and in its own speed.

 

[Nara]

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin, the man the theists love to hate by completely misunderstanding his theory and/or completely misrepresenting it, was a confirmed theist and his skepticism grew only very slowly. There was a point, while on the Beagle, the vessel in which he traveled to South America and the Galapagos Island, Darwin says he believed in the absolute authority of the Bible. Here is what he writes about it in his Autobiography.

"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality."


​

Then he goes on describe the rise of doubt in his mind. He says:

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continuously rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible.

[...]

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief...... But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was last complete. the rate was so slow that I felt no distress.

[...]

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement.

[...]

When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. ... since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, I believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

​

This is the classic agnostic view, one atheists willingly embrace, and the theists fervently reject in favor of their respective version of theistic grand conclusion. But then, they turn around and use the technical soundness of agnosticism to criticize atheism. You can't have it both ways. If you reject agnosticism in favor of your own theism, then you give up the right to use it against atheists who in fact accept agnosticism as part of the reason for their day-to-day atheism. Classic agnosticism, an integral part of what I would like to call practical atheistic POV, is the very antithesis of theism that asserts firm belief in a particular intelligent First Cause.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

It seems that the famous quote may not be from Epicurus at all. Check this link under the section 'Religion':
Epicureanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems the quote was attributed to him by some early Christians and popularized as they considered him an atheist who was against the Christian concept of God.

The article in this link gives the right perspective of the philosophy of Epicurus
http://theosophytrust.org/tlodocs/articlesTeacher.php?d=Epicurus.htm&p=41

 

[KRS]

Dear Brother Nara Ji,

You said in post #161 above:

This is the classic agnostic view, one [FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]atheists[/FONT][/FONT] willingly embrace, and the theists fervently reject in favor of their respective version of theistic grand conclusion. But then, they turn around and use the technical soundness of agnosticism to criticize atheism. You can't have it both ways. If you reject agnosticism in favor of your own theism, then you give up the right to use it against atheists who in fact accept agnosticism as part of the reason for their day-to-day atheism. Classic agnosticism, an integral part of what I would like to call practical atheistic POV, is the very antithesis of theism that asserts firm belief in a particular intelligent First Cause.

I think you are quite off base with the above assertion.

True, that all Abrahamic religions do not accept Agnosticism as a valid conclusion. However, their quibble with Agnosticism is not about the Existence of God, for Agnostics do not deny the existence of God, unlike the Atheists; they only question the Agnostics stance that God is knowable through one's mind (for theists, Mind also has a 'soul' aspect). By the way, as you know, Agnosticism is well ingrained in the Hindu scriptures.

Contrast this with the position the Atheists take. By taking the absolute position that God does not exist at all, you are the ones that negate the basic position of the Agnostics. Yes, I know that there are 'Agnostic Atheists', but this seems to me like saying, I am 10% pregnant but, 90% not! Intellectually such a stance can not stand. A 10% sneaking doubt that the Deity may exist, to me, should translate in to 100% doubt on the stance that God does not exist.

I agree with you that theists use Agnosticism's basic stance that uses Science for the conclusion to argue against Atheism. This is because both have come to their conclusions using Science and logic.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Atheist's stance on the existence on God can not stand up to the logical soundness of an Agnostic. So, as everyone can see, it is the former that misappropriates the latter for their shaky argument.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear brother:

1. No such thing as 'God', at least the 'personal one'. If such a God exists, prove that He exists.
Such a claim misses the mark completely. Once one agrees that there is an 'entity' that was the source of creation of the Universe(s), that is beyond space and time (consequently whose attributes can not be 'discovered' by science),

We have discussed this point many times before. The above highlighted "agreement" is not agreed to at all. Even the question whether there is anything outside of space and time is unanswerable, so there is no question of asserting anything about an entity existing outside the frame of space and time.

Those who assert with 100% confidence that there is something outside space and time, and that there is an entity residing there, one who is itself an uncreated one, and that entity is the intentionally First Cause, must either provide evidence or accept that all this is just their faith. Any other argument is simply a waste of time.

As far as I have read, even the grand maven of atheists Richard Dawkins hedges when it comes to an ultimate creator entity. A few days back some people made a big deal out of this. An absolute Atheist of the kind who asserts with absolute certinty the absence of a supernatural power, is a straw man, easily constructed and burned down. But let it be known that the real position of atheists, one I have stated many times and need not be repeated again, is not what is being burned own.

2. Claims of 'Miracles' can not be true, because they 'violate' the natural laws. Can anyone walk on water; produce endless amounts of fish and bread from a small basket that violate the 'natural laws'?
This more than anything is the generator of skepticism among the non believers. And if only they had taken a moment to think through this logically, they will understand their mistake, not withstanding what Hume said about 'bearing witness'.

Let us assume that we transport a Boeing 747 to merely 200 years ago and fly it.

A 747 aircraft will surely seem like a miracle to ancient people, because they have never seen anything like that, it goes against their normal experience. But we know it no more than a miracle of science, not of some supernatural force. Similarly, even if somebody walks on water, or makes wine out of water, or produces an endless supply of fish and bread from a single vessel in this modern age, a rational mind must presume an yet unknown rational explanation, one that is beyond the limits of our current knowledge. To consider it a supernatural miraculous event of Gods will be similar to those ancients seeing a 747 and prostrating to it as though it is God or is a vehicle of God.

3. If a personal God exists, why should He be All Merciful and a Man?
Morality must stem out of something bigger than us.

To say morality must stem from something bigger is an argument. Even if the argument is cogent, it does not make it true. The Epicurean challenge is not something plucked out of thin air, it is a natural question that follows from the assertion made by theists that there is a personal God, who is omnipotent and benevolent. If the theists want their claim of omnipotent and benevolent god to be taken seriously, they must the answer the logical question posed by Epicurus. To say God is beyond comprehension begs the question, if so, how come you are making these grand statements about God then?

For most theists the personal Gods are real, with specific powers to alter their lives in exchange for a little sycophantic prayer, or ritual, pariharam if you like. Only to a miniscule minority of theists, if that, i.e. those who feel uncomfortable with such merchant-like God, these personal Gods are mere symbols, and in that case, these Gods are merely man made to serve as convenient symbols of the incomprehensible God.

...Contrast this with the position the Atheists take. By taking the absolute position that God does not exist at all, you are the ones that negate the basic position of the Agnostics.

This is a straw man. Even Richard Dawkins does not take this absolutist position.

Cheers!

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Dear saidevo, if your answer is accepted then your own description that your God is Omnipotent and benevolent cannot hold, in other words, the challenge of Epicurus remains unanswered.

BTW, it is not a paradox as you continue to say, there is a perfectly logical answer to this riddle, and that is, there is no such omnipotent and benevolent God as the theists imagine.

Justice comes after the commission of a crime/papa. An omnipotent and compassionate god will prevent this crime/papa from occurring in the first place so that there is no need to visit painful justice upon his own creation. Freewill is not the answer, God, being omnipotent, can easily dismiss freewill and take care of his creation from falling into papa and suffering if he is all compassion, I would if I had the power, even with my very limited compassion.


This is just religious dogma, but even under this dogma, why must a compassionate God allow suffering in this world, why not all three worlds be free of sufferring, he can do it if he wants to, afterall he is posited as omnipotent? There is no need for suffering in any world, three, or three thousand, if this God is omnipotent and compassionate.

This suffers from the same problem as above. Why must a compassionate God allow some to be deserving and others to be undeserving? If I were a compassionate and omnipotent God, I would bestow perfect wisdom to all so that everyone will refrain from sin/papa and be deserving, nobody will be left behind.

Some more religious dogma, I have already addressed this above.

Cheers!

Shri Nara, Sorry for intervening in the discussion between yourself and Shri Saidevo, but I am tempted to do so by the line of your reply. Forgive me for the same.

At the outset, let me ask you these questions (the first one improvised by me as a possible addition to your line of reply):

Why do you envisage that an 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God' will so condition 'His Creation', namely, 'Nature', which comprise both 'inanimate things' and 'animate beings' including us, 'humanity', to be bound by 'His Laws' in such a manner as not to allow for any 'chaos' or 'disorder'?

Why do you think that an 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God' will so condition 'human beings' to do only what are considered as 'good' deeds that are 'beneficial' generally to all of mankind and not have the 'free will' to do anything at all that are considered as 'bad deeds' which wreak 'suffering' on other human beings, or other living things or, for that matter, damage or destroy the environment, which may have the indirect effect of causing the 'suffering' of humanity and all other living things?

Is it because 'suffering' affects you so much that you want to see it eliminated altogether even at the cost of eliminating 'free will' and the 'choice' exercised by human beings now within its ambit?

Is the world envisaged by 'rational' people like you who trust the power of 'Science, Engineering and Technology' to improve the lot of 'suffering' humanity going to be one where there is no 'free will' to 'choose' what is 'good' from 'bad' and instead 'condition' one and all to do only 'good'? Who will determine what are 'good' and what are 'bad' in that kind of world envisaged by you? Will others, who are not part of the decision-making, be able to oppose it at all? Is it going to be a world like that of '1984' or 'Animal Farm' or perhaps, life in yesterday's 'Soviet Union' or the present day 'People's Republic of China'? Is there not a danger of such things happening, if the rational 'SET' people are given all the power and the 'free will' of others taken away to create a better' or even the 'best' of all possible world?

I may be wrong, but I think that 'Science' works in such a manner as to answer all questions about 'how' things work in 'Nature' and, may be, even 'simulate' or 'synthesize' the working of 'Nature', but does not advert to or answer the question of 'why' things exist the way they are, that is, why this 'Universe' or why these varied forms of 'life' on earth and so forth.

And that is exactly what you are doing when, for instance, you raise the question, 'why' an 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God' allows for 'suffering' in this world!

The only answer that the believers in such a 'God' can give you is that 'He' does so for 'His' own reasons!

 

[Nara]

Shri Nara, Sorry for intervening in the discussion between yourself and Shri Saidevo, but I am tempted to do so by the line of your reply. Forgive me for the same.

Dear MVS, you are most welcome to intervene with your views and I am sure Shri Saidevo will welcome it too, as he has always opened his posts with such a welcome. Going further, I really thank you for reading my posts and caring to respond, I appreciate it.

Why do you envisage that an 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God' will so condition 'His Creation', namely, 'Nature', which comprise both 'inanimate things' and 'animate beings' including us, 'humanity', to be bound by 'His Laws' in such a manner as not to allow for any 'chaos' or 'disorder'?

I don't envisage anything dear MVS, in fact I reject a creator God who cares for the human condition. All this is no more than an inquiry about the assertion of theists that there exists a God, who is omnipotent and benevolent. If you don't assert this, then we don't have an argument. But I have a feeling you do, if so, please state your counter. This is not about what I envisage, but what the theists claim.

Why do you think that an 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God' will so condition 'human beings' to do only what are considered as 'good' deeds that are 'beneficial' generally to all of mankind and not have the 'free will' to do anything at all that are considered as 'bad deeds' which wreak 'suffering' on other human beings, or other living things or, for that matter, damage or destroy the environment, which may have the indirect effect of causing the 'suffering' of humanity and all other living things?

Now, given an omnipotent and benevolent God who has the power either to give free-will or free his creations from suffering, the substantive question is what would that God choose to do, give free-will and let his creations that he so loves go about and suffer, or free them from suffering? Heck, with very limited compassion that I have I will choose the later in a NY second.

If this God chooses to give free-will, at the very least a tiny portion of his compassion, which must still be infinite as he starts out with an infinite amount of it, give his creations perfect wisdom as well to choose correctly. It is downright sadistic, IMO, given he has the powers to do whatever he so wishes, to bestow free-will to screw it up, but not the perfect wisdom to avoid screw it all up.

I must say, I have more respect for an all powerful, benevolent God, if such a thing exists, as I think it would act compassionately. It is indeed a mystery to me that the theists have such a low opinion of a God you guys believe in!!!

Is it because 'suffering' affects you so much that you want to see it eliminated altogether even at the cost of eliminating 'free will' and the 'choice' exercised by human beings now within its ambit?

Dear MVS, you are deftly changing the topic, it is not about what I want, it is about what an omnipotent and benevolent God would do if it exists.

.....Is it going to be a world like that of '1984' or 'Animal Farm' or perhaps, life in yesterday's 'Soviet Union' or the present day 'People's Republic of China'? Is there not a danger of such things happening, if the rational 'SET' people are given all the power and the 'free will' of others taken away to create a better' or even the 'best' of all possible world?

Dear MVS, I am not trying to fashion the world in any shape or form, I don't have the power nor the inclination. The question is the rational validity of a personal God who cares for human condition, that is all. Let us stick to it.

The only answer that the believers in such a 'God' can give you is that 'He' does so for 'His' own reasons!

This is progress, you are admitting you have no idea about this God of yours, you have eviscerated theism and are embracing agnosticism, that is good!!

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara, MVS and others.

I think the issues raised by MVS in his post #165 are within the scope of the subject of this thread. While I await Nara's reply to my post #162, I would say that if the quote that has become a sort of urban legend is not from Epicurus and the author is not known, I could only cosider it as the words of a crackpot who would blame the theists for the answers not found within his own philosophy.

Since Nara has based his discussion chiefly on this quote, I as a theist (of the advaita smArta sampradAya) should be permitted to say this much at this level of my spiritual advancement:

• Yes, God is sarvajna--omniscient, sarvavyApin--omnipresent and sarvashak--omnipotent; he is sarva-kAruNya--all compassionate at the same time. I am aware of the contradiction between the first three and the fourth states of God's nature, and I do NOT know the answer to it as yet: why should only atheists be allowed to say that they have no answer as yet?

• But then I believe in the religious and spiritual paradigm given by Self-realized gurus for the contradiction: the human proclivity of free-will and his propensity to create more karma than he dissolves. The sufferings at the individual level are only to the body and mind, whereas the jIva--individual soul as Atman--part of universal soul is beyond the sheaths it is enclosed in.

• When atheists have rationalized human consciousness, character, thoughts and flow of emotions as mental and bodily manifestations of the neural fireworks that originate in the brain, why can't the human tendency towards evil and to cause suffering be rationalized within the ambit of science? When the feeling of love is because of the flow of estrogen, anger because of the flow of adrenaline, depression and even religiosity and spirituality are states of disorder of the brain, why can't good, evil and suffering be such? As KRS as asked, why should they blame a God that they don't believe in, in the first place, for the evil and suffering?

How can I speak about 'The God fallacy' when I am not in a position, even hypothetically, for an alternative, faultless concept in my philosophy of atheism?

 

[sravna]

The case for an all compassionate God:

My own life has seen some of the most testing times. I had some severe health problems which almost ruined my life, almost took away my career and marriage life. But that was also the period that I learned the most. I realized that fact that if you adopt the right attitude you can benefit from even the most harrowing experiences. One normally just sees the pain but rarely misses to see what great good it can do for you. This ability to see beneath the surface I think is inbuilt in all of us but is sadly eclipsed by our own attitude.

So it should be seen that God's compassion is not blind but caring in a deeper way that would benefit us ultimately and permanently.

 

[KRS]

Dear Bro Nara Ji,
My response in 'blue':

Dear brother:

We have discussed this point many times before. The above highlighted "agreement" is not agreed to at all. Even the question whether there is anything outside of space and time is unanswerable, so there is no question of asserting anything about an entity existing outside the frame of space and time.

Those who assert with 100% confidence that there is something outside space and time, and that there is an entity residing there, one who is itself an uncreated one, and that entity is the intentionally First Cause, must either provide evidence or accept that all this is just their faith. Any other argument is simply a waste of time.
Dear Brother, your hero, Professor Dawkins himself made these statements regarding God:

Well there is a sophisticated form of religion which, well one form of it is Einstein’s which wasn’t really a religion at all. Einstein used the word God a great deal, but he didn’t mean a personal God. He didn’t mean a being who could listen to your prayers or forgive your sins. He just meant it as a kind of poetic way of describing the deep unknowns, the deep uncertainties at the root of the universe. Then there are deists who believe in a kind of God, a kind of personal God who set the universe going, a sort of physicist God, but then did no more and certainly doesn’t listen to your thoughts. He has no personal interest in humans at all. I don’t think that I would use a word like delusions for, certainly not for Einstein, no I don’t think I would for a deist either. I think I would reserve the word delusion for real theists who actually think they talk to God and think God talks to them.
The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate

and

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.
God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins - TIME Magazine - RichardDawkins.net

So, it seems to me that the 'God' that Dawkins is rejecting (not on logical basis, anyway) is the God of Abrahamic religion.

Is your view different from his? Because, if it is not, then my statement about agreement that some entity beyond nature exists. If you do not agree with Dawkins and my statement about the impersonal entity, then please elaborate.

As far as I have read, even the grand maven of atheists Richard Dawkins hedges when it comes to an ultimate creator entity. A few days back some people made a big deal out of this. An absolute Atheist of the kind who asserts with absolute certinty the absence of a supernatural power, is a straw man, easily constructed and burned down. But let it be known that the real position of atheists, one I have stated many times and need not be repeated again, is not what is being burned own.
So, Professor Dawkins is not really an 'Atheist' (One who believes there is no deity). What are your beliefs? Do you fit the above definition?

A 747 aircraft will surely seem like a miracle to ancient people, because they have never seen anything like that, it goes against their normal experience. But we know it no more than a miracle of science, not of some supernatural force. Similarly, even if somebody walks on water, or makes wine out of water, or produces an endless supply of fish and bread from a single vessel in this modern age, a rational mind must presume an yet unknown rational explanation, one that is beyond the limits of our current knowledge. To consider it a supernatural miraculous event of Gods will be similar to those ancients seeing a 747 and prostrating to it as though it is God or is a vehicle of God.
Exactly. The important point here is that there is a possibility that Science may yet explain these 'miracles' in terms of 'known' Science. Since that possibility exists, why would Atheists dismiss out of hand such reported occurrences of such events? It is illogical to dismiss something out of hand, when there is still a possibility that those events can still be explained by future science.

To say morality must stem from something bigger is an argument. Even if the argument is cogent, it does not make it true. The Epicurean challenge is not something plucked out of thin air, it is a natural question that follows from the assertion made by theists that there is a personal God, who is omnipotent and benevolent. If the theists want their claim of omnipotent and benevolent god to be taken seriously, they must the answer the logical question posed by Epicurus. To say God is beyond comprehension begs the question, if so, how come you are making these grand statements about God then?
I thought I was arguing against Atheism on lack of merits and not arguing from the point of Theism! As usual, when a logic is put forth, based on THEISTIC ASSUMPTIONS, Atheists clamor for the other side to prove their case, using the useless tools to prove such a case. The problem here is that of asking a runner to prove that he can run while tying him all with a rope! For Theists God exists on Faith, which you do not understand. So, again, using illogical means you claim something is false, when you yourself can only agree by your logic, however strange it may sound, there is still a possibility that a Saguna God may exist. Instead of agreeing to this possibility, there is all this irrelevant thrashing about on proof! This is again, totally illogical and a very clever straw man.

For most theists the personal Gods are real, with specific powers to alter their lives in exchange for a little sycophantic prayer, or ritual, pariharam if you like. Only to a miniscule minority of theists, if that, i.e. those who feel uncomfortable with such merchant-like God, these personal Gods are mere symbols, and in that case, these Gods are merely man made to serve as convenient symbols of the incomprehensible God.
Again, so what? This is a personal matter between a man and his God. If you do not believe it, don't do it. You will never understand it, as obviously the 'hard wire' is missing in you. As I have posted before a paper by a Professor of Psychology, this connection to God is a normal and developed attribute of the humans today - it is not abnormal. You say 'sycophant', I say a 'merciful' God.

This is a straw man. Even Richard Dawkins does not take this absolutist position.
Well, then, all your argument about the 'Fallacy of God' is then null and void, right?

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[renuka]

The case for an all compassionate God:

My own life has seen some of the most testing times. I had some severe health problems which almost ruined my life, almost took away my career and marriage life. But that was also the period that I learned the most. I realized that fact that if you adopt the right attitude you can benefit from even the most harrowing experiences. One normally just sees the pain but rarely misses to see what great good it can do for you. This ability to see beneath the surface I think is inbuilt in all of us but is sadly eclipsed by our own attitude.

So it should be seen that God's compassion is not blind but caring in a deeper way that would benefit us ultimately and permanently.

Dear Sravna,

I fully agree with what you wrote.Sometimes the most testing of times is the leaves the sweetest after taste after the initial bitterness is gone.

 

[C RAVI]

Wonderful post #169, Shri KRS.

This is a world of fantasy and for exhibiting one's rationality, logical skills, cleverness, strength, courage, determination and successful professional background, people are many who come up with 1000s of analogies and examples to question the belief in GOD, though deep within themselves they could realize and accept GOD within themselves at some time in their life, out of real life experiences. But still carry on exhibiting their questioning skills.

All these also helps in presenting one's artistic skills of presentations in the form of poems and quotes. Belief in God or otherwise is immaterial to showcase one's thoughtfull talents. Both in praise of God and against GOD can produce wonderful moral messages that would be soo attractive and appealing to the readers.

But hardly there would be few people who all would truly mean their rejection of the idea of GOD alltogether. As I said in one of my posts in some thread, addressing to Shri Yamaka, I don't ever believe in the existence of 2.5 Billion Atheists on this Earth.

There can allways exist "Human Fallacy" in presentation BUT NO "God Fallacy"

 

[Nara]

.... I would say that if the quote that has become a sort of urban legend is not from Epicurus and the author is not known, I could only cosider it as the words of a crackpot who would blame the theists for the answers not found within his own philosophy.

Dear Saidevo,
Let us look at what the Wiki article says, "this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius..." You take a "may have been" to a status of undisputed fact.

Next, on what basis did you come to the conclusion that if the quote was not by Epicurus, then it must be from a crackpot?

Thirdly, in a discussion on the validity of the quote, ambiguity regarding who the quote is attributed to is irrelevant.

Since Nara has based his discussion chiefly on this quote, I as a theist (of the advaita smArta sampradAya) should be permitted to say this much at this level of my spiritual advancement:

I am chiefly interested in sharing some writings of skeptics. This discussion about Epicurus started when I changed my Signature to what it is now.

... and I do NOT know the answer to it as yet: why should only atheists be allowed to say that they have no answer as yet?

Welcome to skepticism dear Saidevo. "I don't know" is a very good start.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear brother KRS,

So, it seems to me that the 'God' that Dawkins is rejecting (not on logical basis, anyway) is the God of Abrahamic religion.

Is your view different from his? Because, if it is not, then my statement about agreement that some entity beyond nature exists. If you do not agree with Dawkins and my statement about the impersonal entity, then please elaborate.

I don't quite understand the question. My point is, you built a straw man when you constructed an absolute atheist, one that even Dawkins is not. As far as I understand Dawkin's position, whether there is God entity outside time and space, we cannot be 100% certain, but it is very unlikely on several couints. Dawkins uses a 7 point likert scale and says the possibility is 1 out of 7. This makes sense to me.

Whereas, when it comes to personal Gods, like Jesus, Allah, Rama, Shiva, Shakti, etc., the onus of providing evidence is upon those who assert these Gods. Until such evidence is provided there is no rational basis to take an agnostic view, just as much as taking an agnostic view about an Invisible Pink Unicorn just because some people assert its existence would be irrational.

Yes, I do admire Dawkins' forthright and lucid explanation of complex concepts. I don't care for your pejorative characterization that he is my hero. You may deny you meant it in a pejorative sense, but it was all too clear.

Exactly. The important point here is that there is a possibility that Science may yet explain these 'miracles' in terms of 'known' Science.

I think you missed my point entirely. An unexplained phenomenon, if genuine, not like the magic by some godman that have been shown to be fraud, can still not be a miracle just as much as a 747 is not a miracle even though it might seem like one to primitive people. In other words, if a phenomenon that seems suprnatural is clearly demonstrated, not simply asserted, clearly demonstrated like a 747 to a primitive people, even those incredible feats are not miracles and must have a rational explanation that simply eludes us at the current time.

However, so far, nobody has demonstrated walking on water with bare feet, nobody has made wine out of water, noboddy has demonstrated a vessel that never runs out of food, these are simply asserted as though they happened in the distant past. The point is, even if these things really happened they cannot qualify as divine miracles, but there is no credible evidence that these things really did happen.

instead of agreeing to this possibility, there is all this irrelevant thrashing about on proof! This is again, totally illogical and a very clever straw man.

"Irrelevant thrashing about on proof" is what rationality is all about. A positive assertion like Rama is God requires positive evidence. If one must still entertain the possibility of such a god, at a very minimum one must at least provide a rational basis for it. Without even providing that if you insist that I must keep an open mind, then I have to keep an open mind to every outlandish claim that anybody puts forth. This is not rational.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Let's see if we can derive certain qualities of God based on a basic assumption:

Assumption: God is beyond space and time

Form this omniscience, meaning all-knowing follows. Only something that is all knowing can become eternal. Otherwise there is always a possibility that is not known to the entity that might cause its end.

Omnipotence is concurrent with omniscience because it can accomplish anything with its perfect knowledge.

The state of bliss of a timeless entity follows from an extrapolation of our common experience. Time flows fast when experiences are pleasant. Einstein, while talking about relativity, in a lighter vein is supposed to have said that time passes swiftly when we spend it with a beautiful woman. Therefore in a timeless entity, we may reasonably conclude that the experience should be blissful.

Ok so based on our assumption that God is eternal we say he is omniscient, omnipotent, and is in a blissful state.

We know according to our scriptures , moksha is granted to every being, so that blissful state is the ultimate state of every soul. Scriptures also focus on the conditions for attaining moksha. So the aim of God is to to let you reach that blissful state. If it is necessary that all the qualities of God are attained after going through certain conditions, to put it explicitly after pains and pleasures, then they indeed have to be fulfilled. It doesn't diminish at all God's intentions. So we can conclude that God is also compassionate.

 

[Yamaka]

But hardly there would be few people who all would truly mean their rejection of the idea of GOD alltogether. As I said in one of my posts in some thread, addressing to Shri Yamaka, I don't ever believe in the existence of 2.5 Billion Atheists on this Earth.

There can allways exist "Human Fallacy" in presentation BUT NO "God Fallacy"

Dear Ravi:

Yes.. you would not believe many things in this REAL world; as a Believer of God, you would rather believe a Mirage, Ghosts and Spirits and not the Truth! Lol )

If you carefully read my posts, I claim that there are about 2.5 billion people in the world who are non-worshipers (this includes Naturalists, Agnostics, Atheists and "No Comment" people etc. Each sub-group of people takes slightly different position on SNA and collectively they don't believe in the usefulness of Prayers, Poojas and Bhajans or the truthfulness of JPK).

Just take your geography book and ask what's happening in China, Russia and Japan... and how many are Non-Worshipers? You will soon find that vast majority of people there are Non-Worshipers that I am talking about... if you add them up, there you will find about 1.5 billion people which exceeds the about 1.0 billion Hindus who are worshipers in the world.

Then, slowly move to Europe, North America, South America, Africa and Australia... the numbers will add up to about 2.5 billions...

About US:

We are having a Primary in the conservative Republican Party.. Of the four remaining candidates, Rick Santorum is the Religious Social Conservative candidate... So far he has gotten about 25% of the total delegates awarded by Election in the Caucus/Primary.

This 25% is the regular Worshipers in the US. Others are Non-Worshipers who are drifting away from traditional religiosity of the type you belong to.

So, please take a walk along the Geography.... and know the Truth.

Dear Ravi, you may not change, but the world is fast changing.

I am afraid you and your Theist friends will be long forgotten in the New Era...all due to the immense power of logic and SET.. and in spite of SNA!

Watch out.