Why not God?
Dr Zen
It's quite simple. He solves one mystery: why is there something
rather than nothing? But he poses another in answering it: why is
there God rather than nothing? So that's pretty much a tie.
Otherwise, God is just another burden on us, and we have enough.
I was going to explain what I meant by that, but thinking about it, it
should be self-explanatory.
Also, this is not a good world. We can't even pretend it is. It's
rubbish. It's grossly unfair and stupidly so. The bad often get
rewarded, usually at the expense of the not-so-bad. Virtue does not
bring success, or reward, no matter how you measure it. It tends to
bring heartache, because it is just another weakness for the
nonvirtuous, or simply callous, to take advantage of. We are poorly
equipped to live in it, because we have been burdened with just enough
intelligence to understand that we are alive, and not enough to live,
enough to know who we are, and not enough to be able to change.
I don't think a god who made this world would be a good god. I'd
rather it was the outcome of stupid chance. Because doing this on
purpose would be really cruel.
***
But it has beauty, I know you will say. Yes, it does. But you cannot
ascribe all the beauty to God and the ugliness to man, because the
most ugly things are not our fault. That we must die is not our fault.
We'd live forever if we could. That we are driven by feelings we
cannot understand is not our fault either. We didn't make ourselves
(although maybe one day soon we will). And even those things that are
our fault would be his fault too: he is supposed to have made us and
at the same time to be outside time, so he knew how we would be.
But I do not blame God, because I have my preference. He does not
exist. We are a joke the cosmos has played on itself, a rather
unfunny, weak joke, which is told today, forgotten tomorrow. Let's not
be sad about it though. With added God, it would only be funnier.
---
Dr Zen
blurbees.com
> On Oct 15, 8:29 am, Dr Zen <dr...@bickerfest.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > I don't think a god who made this world would be a good god. I'd
> > rather it was the outcome of stupid chance. Because doing this on
> > purpose would be really cruel.
>
> shrug off bad stuff as mysteries.
what, the good isn't just as mysterious?
> To me, it's simply a case of wishful thinking.
you're judging God by some set of people who believe in "God".
that's a huge mistake.
that would be like judging a musician by some peeps who dance to the
music.
> Why would something good have given my little nephew a
> hideous bone disease?
that's like blaming the oceans for Hurricane Katrina.
Global Warming: It's the clouds fault!
> Oh, I know what "they" say: to teach others
> compassion. Or some shit. Bah.
who cares what "they" say?
not moi, that's for fucking sure.
does it show?
> Then there's the watchmaker idea, which at least is a bit more
> palatable. He made it, wound it up, and then went away. Okay.
what, you don't want free will?
cramps your style, does it?
> Seemed like a good idea at the time, he might say now,
> wherever he is.
"he"?
again, you're judging "the musician" by the dancers.
i'd imagine that creating free will is not as easy as say whipping up
some cool songs.
> Maybe he has ADHD.
that's a good one.
i like that.
especially if you prefer to view God as some sort of boss dude.
but anyway, think about it.
what would God do?
what would your idea of God be?
forget about what "they" say about any of that, what do YOU say?
if you were omnipotent, what would you do?
how would you compose "the universe"?
how would you design "life"?
...
it's easy to be a critic.
it's not so easy to crank out the goods.
OTOH, it's pretty easy to be a big fan.
particularly if you have a highly developed sense of humor.
dance!
...
banterboy
How to reach 100,000 people for under a dollar
http://blurbees.blogspot.com/2007/09/sotd-0061.html
http://bickerfest.com/subscribe
http://bickerfest.com/members_invite
aj
> On Oct 15, 12:14?pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 8:29 am, Dr Zen <dr...@bickerfest.com> wrote:
>
> > <>
>
> > > I don't think a god who made this world would be a good god. I'd
> > > rather it was the outcome of stupid chance. Because doing this on
> > > purpose would be really cruel.
>
> > I agree. Believers are quick to give God credit for anything good and
> > shrug off bad stuff as mysteries.
>
> what, the good isn't just as mysterious?
Not what he's saying. He's not talking about mystery in that sense. If
all of this came from God, how can people separate the good from the
bad? Where would bad come from? It's not enough to say we have free
will. If God is good, if He is love, how could even the whisper of the
thought of bad exist in anything that he created? Even with free will,
wouldn't love only beget love? Where did the bad come from?
>
> > To me, it's simply a case of wishful thinking.
>
> you're judging God by some set of people who believe in "God".
No. He's judging God by using his eyes. How could an omnipotent being
of Love, one who exists outside of time, the beginning and the end,
create a world, speak into existence creatures who would treat each
other so very, very badly. Yes, we can treat each other very, very
well as well, and the human spirit at its best is awesome, but it
isn't all there is. We're always struggling, always having to overcome
the bad, but where did the bad come from if God is love? And how could
this being of love bear to begin this cycle of heartache and struggle?
>
> that's a huge mistake.
>
> that would be like judging a musician by some peeps who dance to the
> music.
You're doing exactly what Zen is talking about, shrugging away the bad
as something outside of this God.
>
> > Why would something good have given my little nephew a
> > hideous bone disease?
>
> that's like blaming the oceans for Hurricane Katrina.
So you're saying there is no God. Just some kind of creative force? I
say creative because It is credited with creating the universe. That
must be what you're saying, otherwise you're saying that an
intelligent being cannot be blamed for the ugly parts of its creation.
How so?
>
> Global Warming: It's the clouds fault!
>
> > Oh, I know what "they" say: to teach others
> > compassion. Or some shit. Bah.
>
> who cares what "they" say?
>
> not moi, that's for fucking sure.
>
> does it show?
>
> > Then there's the watchmaker idea, which at least is a bit more
> > palatable. He made it, wound it up, and then went away. Okay.
>
> what, you don't want free will?
>
> cramps your style, does it?
We have free will regardless. What does that have to do with anything?
>
> > Seemed like a good idea at the time, he might say now,
> > wherever he is.
>
> "he"?
>
> again, you're judging "the musician" by the dancers.
>
> i'd imagine that creating free will is not as easy as say whipping up
> some cool songs.
Creatures created by a being of pure love, even with free will,
wouldn't know evil to be free to indulge it. It makes no sense.
Unless, of course, It isn't pure love. It's just all that is. Love and
hate. What good is a God like that?
>
> > Maybe he has ADHD.
>
> that's a good one.
>
> i like that.
>
> especially if you prefer to view God as some sort of boss dude.
How do you view God?
>
> but anyway, think about it.
>
> what would God do?
God would give us what has been given us, but without the capacity for
evil. We would still have curiosity, and would need to rise above the
challenges that living on the earth would bring us. Although, I
suppose one could ask why have a world that requires us to be
challenged? Why not a utopian world of calm seas and no biting
insects? I think that would get boring. After all, even God would seem
to need some adventure, else why enter into this elaborate creation
project? But why death? Well, there would be no challenge, no
adventure otherwise if we knew we could live forever. Or would there
be? We'd be able to do, to try, anything. But if we were so healthy as
not to die, would we get winded climbing a mountain? Would it
challenge us? There's a lot to think about in the way we overcome our
challenges and adversities. Or the way some of us do.
What if none of us are really evil, we just view the idea of what's
good from different perspectives. It's difficult to think in what way
cutting people up and eating them is good, though, isn't it? And not
caring how people are hurt in our desires for power and money? No,
that can't be good.
It's really very difficult to figure out just what one would want a
God to be like. What's the point in a God anyway? How is having a God
any better than not having one?
aj
blurbees.com
> On Oct 15, 11:49 am, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 12:14?pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 8:29 am, Dr Zen <dr...@bickerfest.com> wrote:
>
> > > <>
>
> > > > I don't think a god who made this world would be a good god. I'd
> > > > rather it was the outcome of stupid chance. Because doing this on
> > > > purpose would be really cruel.
>
> > > I agree. Believers are quick to give God credit for anything good and
> > > shrug off bad stuff as mysteries.
>
> > what, the good isn't just as mysterious?
>
i'd imagine that those who really give God credit for their fortunate
circumstances are probably more surprised than anyone that they've
been spared God's wrath.
> I don't believe in giving "God" credit *or* blame.
well, at least you think you're being fair about it.
i'm sure God appreciates that.
anyway...
those who give God credit probably believe they're working on
commission.
those who give God blame probably believe that God gives two shits
about reviews.
> > > To me, it's simply a case of wishful thinking.
>
> > you're judging God by some set of people who believe in "God".
>
> > that's a huge mistake.
>
> > that would be like judging a musician by some peeps who dance to the
> > music.
>
> That's a good analogy. See, for me, there is no musician. There are
> only the dancers. Some are square-dancing, some are waltzing, some are
> belly-dancing, some are in a mosh pit, etc. They all claim they hear
> the music correctly, while I'm standing off to the side with my
> margarita, in silence.
well, that's one way to interpret that analogy.
and a very amusing one, at that.
but the actual analogy meant to suppose that all of the dancers hear
substantially the same music, with the same rhythm, and the same
melody, and whatnot.
and that would include you standing off to the side with your
margarita.
you hear the same music as the dancers.
but it wasn't about how the dancers were dancing to the music (which
ranged from beautifully interesting to pathetically clumsy).
it was more about what the dancers had to say about the source of the
music once they stopped dancing.
you're saying that the music is just a random phenomenon because you
don't like the stated interpretations of the dancers.
you're saying that the dancers are deluded to suppose that there's a
musician of some sort -- mostly because the essays they handed in seem
illogical to you, consisting of nothing but "wishful thinking" and/or
regurgitated essays from those who have persuaded them to write
thusly.
and i'm saying: enjoy the music.
and the dance.
...
and don't write your essay until after you work up a good sweat.
The Quiet Unknown
Zen.
For within Zen and related Taoist/Buddhist/Eastern philosophy, there
is always balance. Good, evil, corruption, honesty, wickedness,
virtue, love, hate, beauty, ugliness. All exist--and all, of course--
depending on time, geography, culture, history, and other factors--are
sometimes subject to the whims of human perception.
But either way, the world is not simply rubbish. Saying so not only
neglects to account for all that can be generally perceived as good in
the world, it ignores the evolution of human understanding, of
science, of faith, of relationships, of just about everything. An
atheist saying the world is rubbish is about as convincing a statement
as a Jesus-cult-member saying the world is perfect.
No matter how much the world--and especially your own world--may suck
on a given day, week, or year, there are plenty of people out there
living honestly, working hard, and getting rewarded for it fairly and
successfully. Of course, even those people have shitty days. And of
course, even in their lives they may see wickedness or succumb to it
to gain some advantage at some particular time. Every life offers the
opportunity for such choices. Those choices exist. And after them,
so do consequences. This is balance.
Do we get screwed sometimes? Yes. If we didn't, by God, (no pun
intended) it would be a world without balance. A so-called perfect
world where everyone is happy and there is no suffering or corruption
or wickedness or assholes taking advantage of the virtuous...makes no
sense, because it quite simply does not account for the entirety of
human nature.
But neither, of course, does a world that is purely rubbish. In a
world of complete and total rubbish, there would be no nice people.
No one would say hello without thinking of a way to steal or murder or
rape. No one would open doors for old ladies. No one would give
their friend a good deal on a used car. No one would care about
anything but themselves.
People do care primarily about themselves--that is in our nature. But
it is also in our nature to care about our relationship to the outside
world and others within it. This is balance. And it is hardly
rubbish.
You are most certainly right that it is ludicrous to credit God with
all the beauty in the world. For non-believers, this is a
particularly important issue. If God does not exist, surely it is not
God that provides me with a beautiful sunset, a great friend, a
wonderful lover, a great day at the beach. Crediting God with all the
world's beauty discredits all the potentially good or beautiful
decisions I may have made on my own--even if my free will was given to
me by God (and only God knows if that is true).
God could exist even with all the world's evils. He may have had good
intentions. He may be a masochist. She might be some kind of force
that flows through everything but doesn't actually create or destroy
anything on her own. It might be the Geico gecko. They might be
scientists toying with us like marbles on the floor. Who knows?
Either way, God is no burden unless you let him/she/it/them bother
you. God is also no help unless you let him/she/it/them assist
you.
I find it quite humorous that I also consider our existence to be
pretty much a joke...but I think it's a hilarious one. In probably
Shakespeare's most depressing play, Macbeth, the famous "Out, out
brief candle" soliloquy pretty much sums up the joke: "Life's but a
walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the
stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
These are wonderful lines. But they were even more awesome when I was
fifteen and mopey. Shakespeare hit on a key point at the end, saying
life seems so loud and outrageous sometimes when in truth, it means
very little. I always interpreted this--with glee back in high
school--as "Life is a big fucking joke."
I still believe that to a degree.
But he wrote other plays, other lines, even better ones. The fact
that he existed--along with other writers--and wrote at all makes a
lot of peoples' worlds more meaningful. The more you read of him, the
more you read of others, the more music you listen to, the more great
movies you watch, the more you experience with family and
friends...even the more you witness evil in the world, you realize how
wonderfully hilarious the big joke is. I especially find humor in the
fragility of life--this is essential to understanding the vitality and
importance and funniness of the joke. (Watch Annie Hall, perhaps, and
pay close attention to Woody Allen's jokes on being obsessed with
death and depression).
Because of course, all of us--and our memories--could be wiped out by
aliens tomorrow.
Also funny.
That possibility alone--me fighting aliens--makes existence
incalculably unlike rubbish.