• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is This a Test

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
You said, "Reading stuff like this makes me glad I'm part of a life-affirming, world-affirming religion." And I'm asking, what other life-affirming, world-affirming belief is there besides deism?

Most of them, when I think about it. Only a portion of the world's religions and philosophies fixate on alleged hereafters at the expense of the now.


At the very least, it is one.

Could you explain why you see it that way? That doesn't follow to me.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
To get to "this life is a test," you don't just need a god. You also need a god that:

- has awareness of people
- relates to people
- cares about people
- is motivated, above all other concerns, by trying to achieve an outcome that's ideal for people.

Yes, except for the "relates to people". If you mean sympathizes with them, then yes. If you mean interacts with them, no.

I see no reason whatsoever to assume a god. I see even less reason to assume that a god, if it did exist, would have all this baggage you seem to just assume without justification.

You continue to ignore the universe as evidence and what might have initiated it. You can't rule out God as the initiator. And what baggage?


Actually, my claims are:

- I've seen no good reason to assume that any gods exist or are likely to exist.

Re; my last response.

- For many gods, I've seen reason to reject them or dismiss them as unlikely.

There is, but that's off topic.


Do you think I said that?

You said, "and here's the #1 way that religion devalues the human experience, life, and... everything, really. 'This existence has no value in and of itself; it's just the test or practice for what really matters.' "
You put those words in the mouth of religion. How is that not the same thing as saying our training and testing in this life has no value.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Ahhh...an omipotent `god`...that knows every possibility of all that is happening and all of what will happen in the future to all of the plants and animals and humans in every possible situation.
It will know about every earthquake, tornadoe, landslide, psenomae, hurricane and etcetera.
Because.....this `god` will have caused everything to have happened !
~
REALLY !!! And of course....there's only one real `god` isn't there ??
A break I need !
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Who said there was a need? The question is, IF there is a God, is this a test? The answer is that there would be no reason for God to create this natural (non-super natural) universe otherwise.

The point was that you can create whatever story you want.

Ok, so you want a God in the story.

God burped or farted which led to the creation of the universe and has about as much care for mankind as you have for the microorganisms in your farts.

peDNxckz9q-4.png
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
If there is a God, why would It create things so that there's no awareness of It's existence? If this isn't test, why not just create all of us to be eternally praising God 24/7/365, or for whatever God wants us to be doing? In fact, angels would be just that, God's yes men with a few rebellious Luciers or something. They'd all be nothing more than God's finger puppets.
Apparently, you didn't read my post that you commented on. It is (my belief, and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary) that it is not possible for humans to know, one way or another, whether or not a universal omnimax (whether deist or otherwise) exists. I am agnostic because I am doubtful of the human ability to understand the truth, the real nature of reality. That ontological agnosticism.

Your questions ask for speculation upon something we cannot know. Sure, I could play along..."IF there is a God, blah blah blah..."

If there is a God...there are many alternative proposals for why we are here, beyond life being a test. I am an agnostic: I'm doubtful about how humans could conclusively demonstrate that life is a test set up by a deity--that we are capable of perceiving and/or conceiving of the true nature of reality. That's epistemological agnosticism.

Of course we can believe life is a test. I just don't see how you can, on the basis of knowing or experiencing, that you can get from "Supposing that there is a God" to "There is a God," and from all the possibilities for explaining our existence, you get to "The only choice left is that Life is a Test set up by God." You haven't presented evidence, you've presented arguments.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Ahhh...an omipotent `god`...that knows every possibility of all that is happening and all of what will happen in the future to all of the plants and animals and humans in every possible situation.
It will know about every earthquake, tornadoe, landslide, psenomae, hurricane and etcetera.
Because.....this `god` will have caused everything to have happened !
~
REALLY !!! And of course....there's only one real `god` isn't there ??
A break I need !

Still hacking away on the revealed religions straw man logical fallacy. None of that takes into account the actions of creatures with free will, which by definition means that God doesn't know what we will do within the parameters of physical possibility.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Apparently, you didn't read my post that you commented on. It is (my belief, and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary) that it is not possible for humans to know, one way or another, whether or not a universal omnimax (whether deist or otherwise) exists. I am agnostic because I am doubtful of the human ability to understand the truth, the real nature of reality. That ontological agnosticism.

Perhaps because ontological (and metaphysical) are two of the most ambiguous words in the English language. And I vote to put "universal omnimax" up in that rarefied air as well. And if we can't know something, then we can know nothing, which begs the question of why you're arguing for anything and any sort of communication would be a 100% hoax.

Your questions ask for speculation upon something we cannot know. Sure, I could play along..."IF there is a God, blah blah blah..."

It's one of only two alternatives, since either the universe was initiated by a supernatural being (God or any of the absurd alternatives like to throw out there like pink unicorns, which, if it created the universe, would qualify it for God), or it sprang into being spontaneously.

If there is a God...there are many alternative proposals for why we are here, beyond life being a test.

A test...of our individual use of free will. But that's just a variation of the pink unicorn logical fallacy. And the reason it comes down to that is that a creator God could have achieved anything else (than creatures with free will) instantly, rather than taking 14 billion years behind which It can remain out of sight and out of mind.

I am an agnostic: I'm doubtful about how humans could conclusively demonstrate that life is a test set up by a deity--that we are capable of perceiving and/or conceiving of the true nature of reality. That's epistemological agnosticism.

Testing our free will is demonstrated (as shown above) by the fact that it's the only reasonable motivation for God remaining hidden, a necessarily deist God, exists. It's elegant simplicity is profound. You may retreat into the God is irrational scenario, as claimed by the Bible in places, but then you have to look at the vast universe that keeps revealing its rationality at ever turn--even when we thought we'd found something otherwise.

You haven't presented evidence, you've presented arguments.
I've presented possibilities, based on the evidence of the existence of the universe, and there being no evidence as to its initiation.

I used to think that the universe coming into being spontaneously without a designer, would not have the evidence of its cause so completely hidden behind the Big Bang, beyond the Planck space-time minimums, as well as beyond the distance at which space expansion goes superluminal. Of course i can't say that possibility is impossible, and further, I can't use the lack of evidence, as evidence. :)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If there's no God, no, we don't "need" one.
I don't accept that, at two levels. First, if humans had no psychological appetite for gods there wouldn't be any. And second, whether or not there's a God, humans will still behave morally independently of that god, because of the moral tendencies from their genetics (as evolved gregarious beings) and from their respective cultures.
If this veil of tears is only to be followed by oblivion, there could be no purpose for a test, or meaning that could be applied to our limited existence except as a soothing fable for our transient, fragile egos.
To be fair to your argument, we know from psychological testing with children that they're more obedient when they think they're being watched. (They were told not to touch the biscuits till the adult arrived. Some were also told that in the room was a lovely fairy, although she was invisible. Guess which group took more biscuits.) For those concerned with civil order, such a trait can be exploited, and is eg by 'Thou God seest me' needlework wall hangings and fake as well as as real CCTV cameras in conspicuous places, not to mention any number of sermons and police warnings of 'extra patrols' and so on.
I don't get the question. I think you're trying to ask something without actually asking it.
I don't understand how 'God is truth' can be a meaningful definition of 'truth'. So I asked you to give me an example of how such a definition can work in action.

If we use my definition, we proceed by checking whether the statement corresponds with (objective) reality. IF Pierre is IN FACT the capital of South Dakota then the statement is true. If not, then the statement is false.

But if we use your definition, I'm at a loss to know how to determine what's true. How does it work?
If I could only accomplish one thing in this life, it would be to get people using "revealed" gods as an argument against a deist God. It's so obviously bogus. But I guess hard atheists and socialists just gotta feed their hate because that's all they got.
Odd that you accuse 'atheists and socialists' of 'hate' on the basis of disliking the clearly stated morality of the bible. But I suppose you mean that those on the right tend to favor aggressive war, massacres, mass rape, human sacrifice, slavery and so on; and you may have a fair point.

But there can be no revealed morality in deism, so really deists are in the same tent as your 'atheists and socialists' in having to point to the natural moral tendencies of humans, which are reasonably well studied.
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
... and here's the #1 way that religion devalues the human experience, life, and... everything, really. "This existence has no value in and of itself; it's just the test or practice for what really matters."

I understand how someone who believes in a good god could rationalize themselves to this position, but it's utter poison, IMO.

Why is this life as being a test seemingly poisonous to you?
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
And if we can't know something, then we can know nothing, which begs the question of why you're arguing for anything and any sort of communication would be a 100% hoax.
We can know things only provisionally. It is not All or Nothing. We know what we experience, but we do not know if that is an illusion, a delusion, a hallucination, a real complete experience, or only a partial experience. All we can do is proceed as if we know something for certain, when we don't. What we seem to know for certain is what works no, at this time, in this place of our experience.

And no, communication is not a hoax, or if it is, it is not yours or mine. Maybe you or I are simply a small program in much larger computer simulation, or a brain in a vat wherein some external entity feeds us sensory inputs to see what we will do with it. Or maybe we're participants in a full-immersion simulated reality game of some sort.

It's one of only two alternatives, since either the universe was initiated by a supernatural being (God or any of the absurd alternatives like to throw out there like pink unicorns, which, if it created the universe, would qualify it for God), or it sprang into being spontaneously.
Well, that's true if you lump everything into two categories, especially when those categories are just made-up words for We Don't Know (and May Not Be Able To Know)...Supernatural? A word for "We don't know." Are you certain that if it was created it could only be caused by a singular being? What if it took the combined efforts of thousands of beings? We don't know, and maybe can't know...Spontaneous? While conceptually different to us, how would you tell whether or not the cosmos came about because it was created or because it was spontaneous? We don't know. How about an eternal universe?

How do you KNOW that the universe hasn't always been here? That's a third option you aren't even entertaining. Certainly doesn't appear to be the case, but who says we're capable of understanding everything about existence? Maybe in a thousand years, or a million...or never...we'll discover that it's always been here, going through fluctuations for reasons we can't comprehend, caused by things--entities or natural laws, and how could we tell the difference?

We may think that by analogy we can recognize only two or maybe three options...and that seems to hinge on reality (the universe) being material as we experience and understand it...and maybe we just don't understand it at all, even though we do experience and communicate about it.

And the reason it comes down to that is that a creator God could have achieved anything else (than creatures with free will) instantly, rather than taking 14 billion years behind which It can remain out of sight and out of mind.
Certainly. but for such a creator entity, the ~14 billion years so far may not be, by comparison, a few moments. There is no reason that 14 billions years is of any consequence for a creator entity.

And, there is no reason that some omnimax 'supernatural' creator could not create a universe with creatures with free will in all sorts of alternative forms, including ones that we cannot conceive of. In fact, the creation of multiple, different universes might be the purpose, to see what happens when the conditions are different.

He/She/It/Them could also have created the universe for other purposes than to have humans (and I would suppose, other sentient beings who could worry about free will...something that has not been demonstrated to be a human trait in any conclusive manner) pass a test.

One of my favorites is the idea that humans (and maybe other sentient beings) taste good. There's no test, there's just harvest, cooking and consumption. Or maybe stars and planets or galaxies or the frothy bubbles and intersections of the intergalactic space are like a snack...

But we (life and sentience) could be just an unintended by-product of a "creation" that was intended to create black-hole singularities...or even naked singularities, which will take until black holes evaporate many bazillion years in the future (according to us)...but who knows, maybe the equivalent of overnight, or thirty minutes at 450 degrees for He/She/It/Them.

Testing our free will is demonstrated (as shown above) by the fact that it's the only reasonable motivation for God remaining hidden,
Assuming that God created the universe to test us, perhaps...but the other alternatives I've suggested above, and many more that could be had with a little creative thought over beer and pizza, might suggest that there is no reason for God to reveal Him/Her/It/Them-selves, because we are not the point of the creation. He/She/It/Them could just be waiting for the harvest, or for the timer to go off take the universe out of the oven to eat it.

I've presented possibilities, based on the evidence of the existence of the universe, and there being no evidence as to its initiation.
I've also presented possibilities.

Is there really evidence that the universe exists? That it is not just a dream? A role-playing game? A computer simulation? An illusion, delusion, or hallucination?

I certainly see no reason to conclude that if there is some sort of "creator or creators," that the purpose is for us to have free will as a test to get into an afterlife.

And one last time: if the universe is the result of some spontaneous event that has resulted in us, how does that appear--to us--any different than a created universe in which either 1) the creator doesn't show because it's not even aware that we exist, as it is interested in other facets of the creation, or 2) knows and doesn't care that we exist, or 3) knows but wants us to be uninfluenced in our use of free will, as a test to get into the afterlife?
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
To be fair to your argument, we know from psychological testing with children that they're more obedient when they think they're being watched. (

Which is exactly the point, finding out what people will do with their free will without being supervised.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Most of them, when I think about it. Only a portion of the world's religions and philosophies fixate on alleged hereafters at the expense of the now.


Deism is one of the few that doesn't. Deism and atheism are, for us here in this life, identical for all practical purposes. As I've said so often, in this thread alone, deism only offers hope.




Could you explain why you see it that way? That doesn't follow to me.
I can't find what you're referring to.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which is exactly the point, finding out what people will do with their free will without being supervised.
Quite.

And now, please explain to me how, with your definition of 'truth', you determine whether the statement 'Pierre is the capital of South Dakota' is true or not. How does your method work in practice?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But that's the point. Neither we nor God would know for sure what choices we would make if we knew God existed and was constantly looking over our shoulder. Any qualities of such good character would be suspect if acquired under such conditions.
Hmmmmmm… So what I hear you saying is that if we acquire good character just because we believe that God exists and is watching our every move, then those good character traits are suspect because we are only acquiring them out of fear? I do understand that but what we do should not be out of fear of punishment, but rather because it is the “right thing” to do. That is noble of you, but there really is no way to separate our knowing that there will be a reward in the afterlife from doing it out of a sense of what is right, unless we do not believe in God or an afterlife. Do you understand what I mean? Moreover, I think that God designed it this way, that we know that what we do here will reap a future reward in heaven, because most people won’t sacrifice their selfish desires unless there is a reward of some kind.The thing is, taking God seriously and trying to meet the requirements is not that easy, so it is according to God’s consummate justice that there is a reward.

“Were the mysteries, that are known to none except God, to be unraveled, the whole of mankind would witness the evidences of perfect and consummate justice. With a certitude that none can question, all men would cleave to His commandments, and would scrupulously observe them. We, verily, have decreed in Our Book a goodly and bountiful reward to whosoever will turn away from wickedness and lead a chaste and godly life. He, in truth, is the Great Giver, the All-Bountiful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 117


Those believers who believe they are saved and forgiven by the blood of Jesus without having to sacrifice any of their selfish desires will not get the same reward as those who did sacrifice. The whole system is pretty fair. :)
It means our choices were made by something other than our will. What good would it be for God to have worshipers that were pre-programmed. And if not, they would have to have free will.
You are right, there has to be something akin to free will in the afterlife because the only alternative is that God just moves us along a conveyor belt… That does not make sense, especially given we are told that the afterlife is just a continuation of this life, only without all the physical requirements we have here.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Quite.

And now, please explain to me how, with your definition of 'truth', you determine whether the statement 'Pierre is the capital of South Dakota' is true or not. How does your method work in practice?
It's an objective fact that the representatives of the people of S. Dakota chose the location and name for its capital, encoded that into law, and that information is contained in maps and Wiki articles on S. Dakota etc. I don't see where my definition of Truth fits in. What do you think that definition is?
 
Top