God and Humans

(The Underlying Fabric)

Batik

God = sharing and co-operation Remove sharing between your internal organs, for instance, or remove cooperation between atoms which make things up, and you have nothing, and no life. God is meant to be the thing which makes everything possible. Sharing and Co-operation actually does that. Everything is made up out of smaller parts that work together to make those forms in some way. Without atomic co-operation, we have no forms. Without organic sharing, as with your heart sharing blood round your body for instance, you have no life. God is meant to be the source of Life and creation. Sharing and co-operation actually is that source. Remove it and nothing can exist. ta da

John Dishwasher

Kind of like the underlying fabric that holds everything together. That's interesting. But again, an atheist can say that such a fabric could exist without a "god." Or that you're just taking a natural "cooperation and sharing" that keeps the universe together and giving it a special name. I'm not saying your wrong. I think all the answers I'm getting in the different forums about this question are valid. I'm just saying what I'm going for in the essay is something everyone can accept. Some atheists could probably find a way to fit your idea into their worldview. But many wouldn't.

Batik

I don't think the right definition has to fit with everyone. It just has to be right. Most would agree that God is meant to be the thing which makes everything possible. Sharing and Co-operation actually does do that. If this also fits an atheist definition, then more power to it. All the well known so called spiritual masters taught us to share, didn't they? The Bible tells us God is Love. Love is sharing isn't it? What else besides sharing and co-operation can you identify which makes life possible? What else does your heart do, besides sharing blood round your system, which keeps you alive enough to answer this?

Aorta

Now wait, it can be right but not right??? I thought that would not stand.

Batike

There is knowledge, and there is lack of knowledge. Free will allows a choice between what works best, and what does not work so well. Eventually we settle on doing what works best for us, which also happens to be what works best for everyone and everything else. This appears to be the last conclusion, because there is no point in trying anything else, once you discover what really works. Kinda like reasoning that the reason you always find what you are looking for in the last place you look has a lot to do with the fact that once you find it, you stop looking.

Knowsgay

This is really the crux of the problem, isn't it? No solution is seen as "best" by everyone. If we have differing goals, we're not aiming for the same outcomes, what each of us feels is "best for everyone" will be in conflict. We expect others to compromise, but compromise is always fodder for dissatisfaction and war.

Batik

If, at the risk of sounding like a new age hippie, we all did for others what we would have done to ourselves, then we would all benefit from that. This is a deal with mankind, that mankind can afford to make with itself. There is no compromise here. For your participation and one input, you get the input of everyone you meet, in theory. It is simply realizing how this combination has a quality about it which is actually miles ahead of any alternative we have up to now been presented with. The problem then becomes simply, how can we make enough people ware of this combination to get them to join in. This is the unfolding of life, the road towards revelation, the path to light, call it what you will, it is the only solution which has the right ingredients. The doubt which prevents total participation, is that you will somehow lose by being kind and caring. The wise man would say that life has a built in solution to that which he might call Karma. If the concept that we actually naturally get back what we give is actually true, then there is nothing to lose. Funny thing is, even if people did not believe in a Karmic Balance, just pretending it exists would reap the same positive results.

Knowsgay

It seems as if you feel every single person should share the same long term goal and while some might agree with you some will not. People have vastly differing ideas about what they'd like the world to look like and you could hardly expect everyone to just give up their dream for yours. Re: the Golden Rule. Immense historical evidence tends to show that a balance of some cooperation and some defection serves both the individual and the society. In other words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, except when you can get away with it." A mix of altruism and selfishness seems to guide the animal kingdom. The system seems to have worked fairly well so far, I mean there's no shortage of people so the genes are getting copied.