A reason for existence of God

[K1Barin]

the reason which is;

the idea of God is a mere useful illusion [of salvific value] to soothe the existential angst.

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

Moreover, is it like "you shall not soothe the existential angst"?

I did not imply it is wrong to soothe the existential angst.

Then why do you criticize that as your saying "the reason which is;" as your only reason in the previous quote?

[K1Barin]

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

Moreover, is it like "you shall not soothe the existential angst"?

I did not imply it is wrong to soothe the existential angst.

Then why do you criticize that as your saying "the reason which is;" as your only reason in the previous quote?

Moreover (sorry for doing this repeatedly), what theists and atheists do is aside from proof for existence of a Loving God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is wrong with soothing the existential angst, in a absolute sense?

Moreover, is it like "you shall not soothe the existential angst"?

I did not imply it is wrong to soothe the existential angst.

Then why do you criticize that as your saying "the reason which is;" as your only reason in the previous quote?

Yes, the only [critical and fundamental] reason why theists cling to God as a salvific balm is to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

I did not imply it is absolute wrong given its critical necessity in the current psychological state of the majority.

What I propose is the majority of humans must move [not now but in the future] away from reliance on an illusory God to deal with the inherent existential crisis.
This will necessitate extensive change in the psychological state [brain wirings] of the majority which is not going to be easy but possible given that the current trend is towards non-theism. The move has to be foolproof to ensure one do not jump from the frying-pan into the fire.

[bahman]

You are not reasoning. The same way you disrupt other's discussions and say "Why is that?" , and questions like that, one can say that to you. If you want to persuade others, please reason when you want to say "For me," this and that, "period."

I have an argument against the God who creates something out of nothing: Any act has a before and an after. This means that you need time for any act. Act of creation includes the creation of everything including time. This means that you need time for the creation of time. That is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation out of nothing is impossible. Therefore there is no God who can create something out of nothing. QED.

When God creates something out of nothing, why he would need time to create anything, including time itself?

I explained this: Any act has a before and an after. Therefore, you need time for it.

Then what is the regress?

Regress is a process when something always depends on something else so you cannot reach an end to the process.

[bahman]

God is the creator of universe, with all its Logic and 1's and 0's. Good is '1'. Evil is '-1' that comes up naturally afterwards in mathematics. By the way '0' is nothing.

What are 1 and -1?

Universe is based on Logic, and lots of 1's and 0's. 1 and -1 and everything else are shapes of things life brings.
In case you may ask, 'life' is the act of choice between any 1 or 0 that can have any shape, which happens during time.
You know what 'time' is. Before and after, you were talking about.

That does not answer my question. When you say 1, 1 is something abstract that could refer to something, like 1 apple. You cannot say that 1 is good as you cannot say that 1 is apple. Again what is your definition of good and evil?

[K1Barin]

When God creates something out of nothing, why he would need time to create anything, including time itself?

I explained this: Any act has a before and an after. Therefore, you need time for it.

Then what is the regress?

Regress is a process when something always depends on something else so you cannot reach an end to the process.

Your reason is not convincing. Why if any act has a before and an after, you need time for it? When creating is something from nothing, God says be it and it becomes. It consumes no time.
So creating time too, consumes no time. So process you are talking about doesn't depend on anything else, so we can reach an end to the process.

[popeye1945]

Life reproduces in such abundance that most of it perishes horribly in a very short time due to hunger or being eaten, life lives upon the lives of other creatures, a horrific reality there is no escape but through death. This god of yours, he is a real fuck up! There is no reason for the existence of a god given the nature of nature.

According to you and your view of nature, even if God doesn't exist, the reality is a real fuck up! With that view, it doesn't help that much for God not to exist. Then why bother?

There is still the wonder of it all, perhaps the seed of religion is knowing we are all part of something greater than ourselves, and it is quite beautiful, but also painful. If one knows the nature of life, that life lives upon life, I think one is more likely to be through an intelligent understanding more compassionate to all of one's fellow creatures. Yes, knowing nature does eliminate a loving god, perhaps through this understanding we could be more like gods ourselves and manifest a sacred life in a sacred environment. This is not going to happen believing in Disney world characters.

[K1Barin]

What are 1 and -1?

Universe is based on Logic, and lots of 1's and 0's. 1 and -1 and everything else are shapes of things life brings.
In case you may ask, 'life' is the act of choice between any 1 or 0 that can have any shape, which happens during time.
You know what 'time' is. Before and after, you were talking about.

That does not answer my question. When you say 1, 1 is something abstract that could refer to something, like 1 apple. You cannot say that 1 is good as you cannot say that 1 is apple. Again what is your definition of good and evil?

Good is an adjective, and apple is a thing. They don't mix. By good I mean all the good things.
Good is 1, and evil is -1. In Logic of speech, Good is True, and Evil is False. And I noted it in my discussion with others that True and False are not good translations for 1 and 0. Because False has negative weight, but 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call 0 'not true', not 'false'. In mathematics Logic is based on 1 and 0. And mathematics is more fundamental than speech.

[K1Barin]

Life reproduces in such abundance that most of it perishes horribly in a very short time due to hunger or being eaten, life lives upon the lives of other creatures, a horrific reality there is no escape but through death. This god of yours, he is a real fuck up! There is no reason for the existence of a god given the nature of nature.

According to you and your view of nature, even if God doesn't exist, the reality is a real fuck up! With that view, it doesn't help that much for God not to exist. Then why bother?

There is still the wonder of it all, perhaps the seed of religion is knowing we are all part of something greater than ourselves, and it is quite beautiful, but also painful. If one knows the nature of life, that life lives upon life, I think one is more likely to be through an intelligent understanding more compassionate to all of one's fellow creatures. Yes, knowing nature does eliminate a loving god, perhaps through this understanding we could be more like gods ourselves and manifest a sacred life in a sacred environment. This is not going to happen believing in Disney world characters.

When the horrific death has no escape, be it God exists or God doesn't exist, where is the compassion to all of one's fellow creatures?

[bahman]

Well, that won't work. There are pleasurable evils, such as rape or theft, for example. And there are beneficial pains, such as weight training or medical therapy.

Now you are mixing things. There are two sides/persons when it comes to Good and Evil. One is the receptor of the action and another is the actor. For example, rape is pleasurable for the raper but painful for the one who is raped.

That's not how either works, actually. Rape is an act of aggression, rather than pleasure, and theft makes the victim a victim, and the perp a thief.

But either way, you're assuming your own arbitrary definition, one that is clearly not correct. Pain and pleasure come mixed, in life. And it's not at all obvious that you can identify one with "evil" and the other with "good."

So you'd need to prove that definition of yours.

No, I don't need to prove my definition. The definition is a phrase that explains a situation/word. As far as the definition is proper, explain the situation well, then we can agree upon it so there is no need to prove a definition. Moreover, it seems to me that you don't understand that there are two sides/persons in any act. On top of that the raper could be under the pressure of having sex so he is suffering so the act of rape, in this case, is evil-evil. He however might enjoy raping so the act, in this case, is good-evil.

But it wouldn't matter which kind of "evil" you decide to name...you're going to face exactly the same set of problems.

And I gave you an example of a person who has a locked-in syndrome.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

No, I am not facing any problems. My definition is consistent and explains reality well.

You're still going to need a set of criteria.

No, I don't need a set of criteria. My definition is simple and it explains the reality of things well.

And now you've got the same problem: how do you get the criteria to make that judgment?

Judgment for which God is true?

No. For your claim that "God is evil."

You're going to need criteria of "good" and "evil," and criteria that exceed God. You are making a judgment ABOUT God, so you need criteria that transcend (i.e. are bigger than) God.

I am asking why God is not Evil. I am not saying that God is evil.

Well, maybe you'd better tell me exactly what you mean by "evil," and where you get your criteria for judging it.

I already defined what I meant by evil.

It's not important what you meant. It's important that whatever you meant corresponds to a justifiable definition of "evil," because that's the term you're hoping to apply to God.

Do you want me to prove that God is evil? I have no such intention. I am asking why God is not evil or neutral giving the definition of evil or neutral.

Well, let's simplify: from where do you get your criteria by which you claim to be able to judge your "god" as "evil"?

For me, there is no God who can create things from nothing, regardless of His nature.

That's not an answer. Where do you get your criteria?

I didn't ask where you fail to find any.

Criteria for what? That there no God or God is evil? I have an argument for the first one. I am however asking why he does not consider God evil.

You're not understanding the problem, clearly. I'm not making a claim as if I think you have some personal moral deficiency, or something like that. I'm asking where you get the criteria of "good" and "evil," since you obviously can't be getting them from your "god," because you're using the criteria to pass judgment on its character as "evil."

I already define Good and Evil. An Evil God basically creates Evil which makes His creatures suffer.

From where do you get that definition, so as to know it's right? What's your basis for thinking that?

Geez...'round and 'round with you...can't you answer a simple question?

What do you expect? God is either love! That is a definition of a good God. Or God is hate. That is a definition of an evil God. There is no alternative.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You still need to be getting your criteria from somewhere.

I defined what I mean by Good and Evil.

Same problem: where did you get your criteria?

I don't need criteria when I define something and the definition works well.

How?

I defined it for you.

No...where did you get your criteria?

You either accept my definition or not. There is no need for criteria. What is your problem with my definition?

Do you see the problem, B? You have to get your criteria from somewhere. From what or where do you get them?

From my sense of judgment.

That means you want us to think "Evil is evil because Bauman says." "Good is good, because Bauman says."

That's not a justification. It's just an assertion. We don't have to believe you, unless you have much more than that. You need criteria. You have to get them from somewhere. Where are you taking them from?

Nowhere. A definition does not need a justification. A definition is good if it explains things well. Otherwise is bad.

[bahman]

When God creates something out of nothing, why he would need time to create anything, including time itself?

I explained this: Any act has a before and an after. Therefore, you need time for it.

Then what is the regress?

Regress is a process when something always depends on something else so you cannot reach an end to the process.

Your reason is not convincing. Why if any act has a before and an after, you need time for it? When creating is something from nothing, God says be it and it becomes. It consumes no time.
So creating time too, consumes no time. So process you are talking about doesn't depend on anything else, so we can reach an end to the process.

We are talking about the act of creation out of nothing, so there was a point that there was only God and nothing else, that is before the act. There is a point when God creates things. That is after the second point. What do you expect that before and after are referring to here if it is not a point in time?

[bahman]

Universe is based on Logic, and lots of 1's and 0's. 1 and -1 and everything else are shapes of things life brings.
In case you may ask, 'life' is the act of choice between any 1 or 0 that can have any shape, which happens during time.
You know what 'time' is. Before and after, you were talking about.

That does not answer my question. When you say 1, 1 is something abstract that could refer to something, like 1 apple. You cannot say that 1 is good as you cannot say that 1 is apple. Again what is your definition of good and evil?

Good is an adjective, and apple is a thing. They don't mix. By good I mean all the good things.
Good is 1, and evil is -1. In Logic of speech, Good is True, and Evil is False. And I noted it in my discussion with others that True and False are not good translations for 1 and 0. Because False has negative weight, but 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call 0 'not true', not 'false'. In mathematics Logic is based on 1 and 0. And mathematics is more fundamental than speech.

You are not making any sense. Period.

[K1Barin]

That does not answer my question. When you say 1, 1 is something abstract that could refer to something, like 1 apple. You cannot say that 1 is good as you cannot say that 1 is apple. Again what is your definition of good and evil?

Good is an adjective, and apple is a thing. They don't mix. By good I mean all the good things.
Good is 1, and evil is -1. In Logic of speech, Good is True, and Evil is False. And I noted it in my discussion with others that True and False are not good translations for 1 and 0. Because False has negative weight, but 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call 0 'not true', not 'false'. In mathematics Logic is based on 1 and 0. And mathematics is more fundamental than speech.

You are not making any sense. Period.

Same to you. But what you call period is upon God.

[K1Barin]

That does not answer my question. When you say 1, 1 is something abstract that could refer to something, like 1 apple. You cannot say that 1 is good as you cannot say that 1 is apple. Again what is your definition of good and evil?

Good is an adjective, and apple is a thing. They don't mix. By good I mean all the good things.
Good is 1, and evil is -1. In Logic of speech, Good is True, and Evil is False. And I noted it in my discussion with others that True and False are not good translations for 1 and 0. Because False has negative weight, but 0 has no weight. Maybe it would have been better to call 0 'not true', not 'false'. In mathematics Logic is based on 1 and 0. And mathematics is more fundamental than speech.

You are not making any sense. Period.

Same to you. But what you call period is upon God.

[K1Barin]

Oops. Sorry for doubling.