Does God Exist?

Could I suggest that you are not anti-intellectual, but anti-egotism?

Peace and Love

 

Brother Varuna,

Is an anti-intellectual someone that can hear the sound of one hand clapping?

As for egotism...if that is defined as the mind's I of self then I am probably not anti that either.

 

It seems alot of people don't like to use the term god because for some strange reason they associate the terms soley with a sky daddy type of being. I wonder why?

 

Well I can't answer the poll because there is no option for me to choose.

There is the The Theist, The Agnostic and The Atheist - the Tdaoist is in fact the answer to this age old argument.

 

and with that, ladies and gents, sejtzu resets Taoism to the beginning. For the first lesson of Taoism teaches us: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Therefore, the Tao cannot be the answer to whethter or not god exists.

so, bzzzzzzzzzzz...wrong again!!

 

Depends on your point of view, my friend. The atheist would argue that: if love creates and evil destroys then there cannot be a God, for God would be all supremely powerful and posess the ability to overthrow the fallen angel, thus the world would be a different place if there was a God.

Indeed, mental illness is what strikes me as irrefutable proof of the non existence of a supremely all powerful and decisive creator. The theist would argue that perhaps without light there is no darkness and so without some pain there is no understanding of what is good. Indeed, I would agree to some extent there, but at the end of the day, the design of the human mind is not the product of an all loving creator. To explain, the mind operates via chemicals and communicators, any of which could go wrong at any time. Perfectly healthy people can and have been known to develop a chemical imbalance which leaves them suffering from schizophrenia and all kinds of torturous experiences. To me, this is a little below the belt and only proof that God does not exist.

As I said, I agree to some extent that there is no darkness without light, I am a Tdaoist and therefore take the law of Tdao to be the supremely powerful force in our universe. But what many people who are unfamiliar with Tdaoism misunderstand is that the law of Yin and Yang actualy has nothing to do with an all powerful "decisive" creator...

(... taken from www.hm/simonedwardjepps.com ... )

Indeed, you argue that the existence of god cannot be proved either way and so this age old argument continues.... but what I am trying to introduce is Tdao, which is a completely different concept to that of a "decisive" creator (decisive meaning one who can decide what the world will be like before he creates it) and thus harmonising the entire argument with the sound of one hand clapping.

 

the tao does not prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

If you try to use the Tao to answer such a query, you know not of the eternal Tao.

 

Indeed you argue it does not- but the point of my post was merely to introduce an alternative train of thought which solves the need for argument.

The Tdao is instead, a compromise, which if we all accepted we would all get along better.

If you cannot see that the Tdao is a just compromise then it is you who does not know of the eternal Tao.

 

how does "- the Tdaoist is in fact the answer to this age old argument." solve the need for argument.

you're not a Taoist. You're not even close.

 

Well, we both agree that we are unable to prove the existence or non existence of god - therefore this conversation is pointless.. agreed?

So - what I am explaining is that seeing this conversation is pointless, why not learn of the compromise which quenches the thirst.

Do not acuse me of being anything else.

 

telling us that being a taoist solves the need for argument IS pointless, agreed???

how is that a compromise? just admit your first post is as pointless as someone saying "god exists" and be done with it.

do not accuse me of anything else.

 

Coming from one who has supposedly read all about Tdaoism, I am suprised that you wish for this argument to continue and discourage the learning of such a beautiful philosophy.

I am being kind in suggesting something that will indeed help the Agnostic or troubled one with such a dilema.

Forgive me, but these forums encourage free speech (I noticed a Taoism forum too, which is why I joined), so if you believe that it is YOU who knows of the eternal Tdao, might I suggest you encourage people to learn of it too?

 

if you claim to know, you don't know. 1st rule of the Tao.

you made two claims including that one that you are a Taoist. I never made such a claim. Stop accusing me.

free speech is free.

 

Indeed, but then why did Lao Tzu write his book? = For the same reason I am suggesting you read it (or the Zhuangzi which I personaly prefer).

Incidently, Tdao and God are two completely different things. "God" is a supremely all powerful and decisive creator, which is worshiped, whereas Tdao is not. Tdao is instead the supreme creational principle and continuum of the universe.

Therefore, I am not intending to give an answer to this argument with a "yes" or "no", I am merely presenting something else, which is far more enjoyable than arguing the existence of "invisible pink unicorns".

 

One quote I remember is from A Jewish scholar named Rambam who said something along the lines of "You can't say what God is, but rather, only, what he is not." I feel that my beliefs are somewhat bias due to my knowledge of the brain and God. Before that knowledge I always thought of God, not as a "sky daddy" but rather something that just connected us all.

 

I see God.

 

I see stupid people.

 

I see god in stupid people.

 

No, "god" is the imaginary friend of the human adult.

 

calling them human is offering a lot of credit!