How can there not be a god?

book The Master Game, De Ropp paints with broad, strong, and sweeping strokes, clearing a basic way to begin thinking about the problem: essentially life is a series of "games," and from here, it's really a matter of which game you want to play.

By "game," he does not mean anything unimportant, trivial, or not serious; quite the contrary, as he states, "having found the game, play it with intensity - play as if your life and sanity depended on it. (They do depend on it)."

He lays a foundation of some of the major games available:
​

​

The Low Games:

​

"Who are you calling a 'hog'?"
​

Game
"Hog in Trough"

"Cock on Dunghill"

"Moloch Game"

​

Trophy

Wealth



Fame



Glory or Victory

​

"Who are you calling 'cocky'?"

​

• The "Hog in Trough"
  - De Ropp describes in the following way: "The aim is to get one's nose in the trough as deeply as possible, guzzle as much as possible, elbow the other hogs aside as forcefully as possible." The trophy of this game is "wealth."
• "Cock on Dunghill,"
  De Ropp describes "is played for fame. It is designed primarily to inflate the false ego and to keep it inflated." "Players of Cock on Dunghill are hungry to be known and talked about . . . the real player of Cock on Dunghill, whose happiness depends entirely on the frequency with which he (or she) sees his name in the papers . ."
• "The Moloch Game"
  De Ropp describes as "the deadliest of all games," consists of "professional mankillers trained to regard such killing as creditable provided those they kill favor a different religion or political system and can thus be collectively referred to as 'the enemy.'" The 'trophy' for this game is "glory or victory."

The Neutral Game:

GameHouseholder Game:​

TrophyRaise Family​

• This "Neutral Game" De Ropp describes as "The Householder Game" is simply "to raise a family and provide it with the necessities of life." It is stated as neutral because it is"the basic biological game on which the continuation of the human race depends."

The High Games:

Game
Art Game
Science Game
Religion Game
Master Game​

Trophy
Beauty
Knowledge
Salvation
Awakening ​

• "The Art Game"
  as De Ropp describes, "ideally is directed toward the expression of an inner awareness loosely defined as beauty." In this game, as in all others, there are good players as well as bad. The goal of this game is defined loosely as "beauty."
• "The Science Game"
  De Ropp describes as the pursuit of "knowledge," and then outlines many of the ways that this game as well is often corrupted, muddied and tainted (by players whom De Ropp sounds intimately familiar with). Says De Ropp, "Much of it is mere jugglery, a tiresome ringing of changes on a few basic themes by investigators who are little more than technicians with higher degrees . . . Anything truly original tends to be excluded by that formidable array of committees that stands between the scientist and the money he needs for research. He must either tailor his research plans to fit the preconceived ideas of the committee or find himself without funds. Moreover, in the Science Game as in the Art Game there is much insincerity and a frenzied quest for status that sparks endless puerile arguments over priority of publication. The game is played not so much for knowledge as to bolster the scientist's ego."
• "The Religion Game"
  De Ropp describes loosely as the pursuit of "salvation," and then outlines as well many criticisms of that particular game: "The Religion Game, as played in the past . . . was essentially a game played by paid priests of one sort or another for their personal benefit. To compel their fellowmen to play the game, the priests invented various gods, with whom they alone could communicate, whose wrath they alone could assuage, whose cooperation they alone could enlist. He who wanted help from the gods or who wished to avert their wrath had to pay the priests to obtain his ends . . .
  
  The game was further enlivened, and the hold of the priests on the minds of their victims further strengthened, by the invention of two after-death states, a blissful heaven and a terrible hell. To stay out of the hell and get into the heaven, the player of the Religion Game had to pay the priests, or his relatives had to pay them after his death. This 'pay the priest' aspect of the Religion Game has caused several cynics to define it as the world's oldest confidence trick designed to enable certain unscrupulous individuals to make a profit out of the credulity and suggestibility of their fellowmen by interceding on their behalf with some nebulous god or ensuring their entry into an equally nebulous heaven."
  
  Yet, on a lighter note, De Ropp also states " . . . it must be obvious to any fair-minded observer that there is another element in the Religion Game besides that of playing on the credulity of believers and selling them entry permits into a phony heaven. All the great religions offer examples of saints and mystics who obviously did not play the game for material gain, whose indifference to personal comfort, to wealth and to fame was so complete as to arouse our wonder and admiration." These individuals De Ropp puts in another category altogether, "The Master Game."
• "The Master Game"
  - in De Ropp's words, describes as "the most difficult game of all . . . the aim of which is the attainment of full consciousness or real awakening."
  He continues: "The basic idea . . . is that man is asleep, that he lives amid dreams and delusions, that he cuts himself off from the universal consciousness . . . to crawl into the narrow shell of a personal ego. To emerge from this narrow shell, to regain union with the universal consciousness, to pass from the darkness of the ego-centered illusion into the light of the non-ego, this was the real aim of the Religion Game as defined by the great teachers, Jesus, Gautama, Krishna, Mahavira, Lao-tze and the Platonic Socrates."

 

By saying that a god created everything to look beautiful, this would imply that the god also "programmed" humans to love and praise nature. Wouldnt this jeopardize free will? Its a bit off topic, but the two arguments (intelligent design and free will) seem to contradict themselves.

 

Ok...funtime is up. I should just go ahead and inform you all that we just pawns in an animated chess video game. Illusions in the mind of the storywriter. God is Timothy Leary...we are all in his mind...chaos...wow.

 

Is that what Leary believed? hah!

 

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id8/pg1/

 

Typically, in Buddhism, especially in the West, the Universe is "god" and it always existed. It manifested itself in what we see today, out of love.

 

"YOUR BRAIN IS GOD"....ha!


Ha ha ah aa hh


CHAOS.

 

in my opinion, the complexity of the universe is because everything (and i mean EVERYTHING) is interconnected. there is nothing that is an independent entity - all things are connected to everything else in some way. when looking at something and thinking it complex, think about how you're viewing it. perhaps it really isnt that complex at all. and maybe something that you would perceive as simple is actually really complex. this vast network of connecting all things could be perceived as too much to even grasp, and that's why it's necessary to realize that everything is one and united (by being interconnected).

i forget where this is from, but there's an analogy of a spider's web with a jewel on each one of the nexuses (nexi?) of each strand. and in the image of each jewel, you can see every other jewel in the web.

 

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/saf/networks/networking-networkers/indras-net.html

 

Here's an analogy of religion and "god" that I enjoy

 

I have come to this conculsion

god is the universe and ture reality

 

PANTHEISM, eh?

 

THAT IS VERY RIGHT!!!! but now... your understanding and context -your understoof definition - of God might be a bit too objectified, by learnt assumption. Which truly is very understandable, don't worry.

Objectified, Delfo, means something like "the ultimate definition of; applying to ALL" When you're saying the word "god" in your last post, your definition of God is still (now correct me if i'm wrong) this 'man-like' ultimate being, a creator...

I believe buddhists thought that, like you said, their defition for the word 'god' might be more like "this unexplainable universe that just IS, that we're trying to understand." This thing that we're all trying to understand, (KEEP IN MIND! the thing i talk about doesn't hold your 'man-like', omniprescent identity), it might be what IS, not any noun.... but EVERY noun... and how it all is just existing. like hikaru's signature, his god is spelt nature =)

I believe God is very subjective (the opposite of objective. it means 'derived from person interpretation; not objective reality; applies to self'). As it turns out, we all are inevitably here on this planet. we are presented several religions (which are all just a culture's interpretation of whatever IS). Like hikaru said, low medium high... we can accept it blindly, we can accept it and learn from it - using the knowledge from the beloved religion to guide our life, headstrong and loving - sure. it's beautiful, don't get me wrong. and high, i believe, might be something along the lines of 'continually interpreting this WHAT IS, continually destabilizing your assumption, and growing!' That might be buddhist philosphy, i'm dont know, but sounds ballpark, i'd assume =)

Now... also like hikaru said, the labeling of medium does NOT make you any less intellegent, living any less proper of a life... they were created, obviously, by someone who believes the highest shoudl belong to someone who renounces religions... religions, if you live like the medium intellegence person, can be a BEAUTIFUL guiding light, and amazing thing... just continue to learn and grow from it, interpreting it. and NOTHING shouldn't sway the way you live your own life but your own feelings and thought's growth!! GOD is subjective in that means, it's whatever YOU want it to be, because that's what is, to you, subjectively. God's a beautiful thing.

 

Damn Delfo I know age is in the mind, but 14 youve got the puzzle pieces on their way, GOD BLESS KID. So check it. The buddhists would never say there is no GOD, they know they exist some how, and that is there GOD. That physical experience. They just dont bother naming or comprehending something a huge as the creator of this universe. WHich isn't to say they are not grateful, they just might not want to be arrogant enought to name or contain GOD. As for their GOD the pray to the infinite universe. I forget the name but I think thats the idea. This would explain the chants and meditations. If you research hinduism, they speak of the same chants, meditations, karma, and reincarnation cycles. Buddhism is basicly hindusim in action. I think. ANd much Peace

 

We are God, everything in existence is an expression of God. There is no separation, and I believe the Buddhists would agree. The very "Bodhisattva" (or however you spell it) is just another word for union with the creator. Its all relative, I believe, religion-wise. And Zion, I definitely know what you mean. Its difficult to even consider the possibility of there not being a God when the Universe is so magnificently put together. I guess for me personally (and please, I mean no offence by this to anyone with seperate beliefs) I just KNOW there is a God because I feel it at the very core of my existence.

 

this thread makes me hopeful, thankyou

 

I am disapointed in my creator. Bad Job. Bad Job.

 

Majjima Nikaya

Sutta 100
Sangarava Sutta

... the bramin student Sangarava said to the Blessed one: "Master Gotama's stiving was unfaltering, Master Gotama's stiving was that of a true man, as it should be for an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. But how is it Master Gotama, are there gods?"

"It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are are gods."

"But how is this, Master Gotama, that when you are asked, 'Are there gods?' you say: 'It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods'? If that is so, isn't what you say empty and false?"

"Bharadvaja, when one is asked, 'Are there gods?' whether one answers, 'There are gods,' or 'It is known to me to be the case that there are gods,' a wise man can draw the definite conclusion that there are gods."

"But why didn't Master Gotama answer me in the first way?"

"It is widely accepted in the world, Bharadvaja, that there are gods."

When this was said, the brahmin student Sangarava said to the Blessed One: "Magnificient, Master Gotama! Magnificient, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways ..."

__________________________________________________

What does this mean?

Exactly what Buddha said ... a wise man can draw the definite conclusion that there are gods ... and ... It is widely accepted in the world that there are gods.

In other words, because the world believes in God or gods, heavenly beings or hell beings, then a wise man will accept it as they believe it and let them believe as they will.

If for you there are gods or God, then for you gods or God exists and is real.

There can be a god if you believe in a god, or there cannot be a god if you so choose to not believe in a god ... The choice is yours.

But even though others do or do not believe, the choice is theirs and not yours to disparage them for their beliefs. If they so choose to believe in a god or gods then to them there are gods and a wise man will see and accept this.

 

Seems to be the road to self deception. If God exists, God exists whether or not you believe in God.

If you don't want to believe in God, God will help you decieve yourself.