Why seek "God"?

[FireDragon76]

I deny that revelation is equal to direct knowledge. In fact, the concept of revelation is opposed to direct knowledge.

I'm just curious how somebody can be a Christian for decades and lose their faith in favor of a religious practice largely devoid of intellectual curiosity and filled with its own dogmas about reality. You speak as if reason is so important, but the narrative you are presenting does not sound like a reasonable approach to truth. It sounds like its driven by disappointment.

 

[ananda]

that seems to be an appeal to faith in the end. We are just supposed to take Buddha at his word that he really was enlightened. It doesn't really dispel the paradox.

It's not an appeal to faith, when one can see his destination and experience intermediate stages of the destination along the way. For example, I can see the ending of dukkha as I walk the Eightfold Path, since I experience progressive greater stages of the release of dukkha along the way.

It's only an analogy. I no longer have faith the Buddha was uniquely enlightened.

Early Buddhism isn't faith-based; it does not matter to our eternal "salvation" whether or not the Buddha was uniquely enlightened. What matters is the application of the practices (Dhamma) in the disciple in the here-and-now, and if they work.

You did ask us "Why seek "God"?". A "purpose-driven" life is one such reason. Psychologists will tell you human beings are goal-oriented to one degree or another, we tend to thrive when we set goals for ourselves and work towards them. Without these things we tend to become apathetic and listless.

Buddhism does provide a purpose: the attainment of unbinding, to answer the question of dukkha. This purpose is associated with the here-and-now ... whereas faith-based religions provides imaginary & unverifiable purposes tied to an imaginary future, or an unverifiable past.

 

[FireDragon76]

Early Buddhism isn't faith-based; it does not matter to our eternal "salvation" whether or not the Buddha was uniquely enlightened. What matters is the application of the practices (Dhamma) in the disciple in the here-and-now, and if they work.

In other words its delivering pleasant experiences. That's not the same as truth. Truth could be unpleasant, but it's still truth.

You are not presenting a flattering portrayal of Buddhism. If anything, it seems like the worst stereotype of religion, as an opiate. Truth doesn't seem to matter to you, only the escape from your own personal suffering.

 

[ananda]

I'm just curious how somebody can be a Christian for decades and lose their faith ... You speak as if reason is so important, but the narrative you are presenting does not sound like a reasonable approach to truth. It sounds like its driven by disappointment.

Christianity ultimately didn't "work" for me. The only answer to dukkha was to 1. pray about it or to 2. suffer, bearing God's will.

The thought which finally broke my connection to Christianity was the knowledge and understanding that I cannot personally verify any of the alleged stories or dogmas I was supposed to have blind faith in. Without the ability to personally verify, it's just as easy to practice any other faith-based religion. And, there are an endless number of faith-based religions competing for my loyalty and attention.

I found that reasoning quite reasonable.

in favor of a religious practice largely devoid of intellectual curiosity and filled with its own dogmas about reality.

There are some unverified claims in the texts of early Buddhism, claims which I have not verified for myself. However, faith is largely irrelevant in early Buddhism; knowledge, instead, is most important.

There is an incident recorded in the early Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha was teaching a point of doctrine, and asked his chief monk (Sariputta) if he believed in it. Sariputta replied "no" because he had not directly experienced and known that doctrine for himself - yet. The Buddha praised him for his answer.

 

[ananda]

In other words its delivering pleasant experiences. That's not the same as truth. Truth could be unpleasant, but it's still truth.

You are not presenting a flattering portrayal of Buddhism. If anything, it seems like the worst stereotype of religion, as an opiate. Truth doesn't seem to matter to you, only the escape from your own personal suffering.

Not at all. Early Buddhism teaches that it is truth, and wisdom based on truth, which ultimately and permanently frees us from dukkha, since delusion is the cause for attachments and aversions. All three together - the three poisons - produce dukkha.

Yes, the pleasure and bliss of jhana only temporarily frees the mind from lower attachments and aversions, but that state allows us to see into the nature of reality more clearly, like the calming of the surface of a pool of water so we can clearly ee what's on the bottom of the pool. By seeing directly, we gain wisdom and we loosen and ultimately let go of the strings of attachments and aversions, and it is this wisdom which permanently releases us from that lower level of dukkha. This process is visible in ordinary life, we just have to observe the learning process of a child, for example.

 

[afishamongmany]

I understand that is what Christianity teaches you. However, how would you suggest how I can directly observe these dogmatic allegations (e.g. regarding sin, rebellion, repentance, God, Jesus, etc.) for myself, that they are a deeper and more fundamental motivator than dukkha? For example, I can directly observe, for myself, how dukkha seems to explain the motivation behind my every action.

Dear ananda, I would love to spend more time with you on this but the sun is shining and I have a gate to make, plus, plus, plus. All in an utterly Zen way of course.
Just to say;
sin is well observable all around us. You do not 'observe' it within you? Shine the light. As for seeing God, Jesus, etc,
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
from Romans 1:19,20. Yes I know, to you a 'dogmatic allegation'.
Let the light shine O Lord.
Understanding the motivation behind our actions is a good thing. But concerning an unregenerated soul the explanation is not complicated - selfishness. What we do will always relate back to what we are. We can do all the messing around we want with what we do and with what we think but we cannot without God's gracious intervention change what we are. It was the realisation that Buddhism could not change the 'I' I didn't want to be that caused me to let it go. This was before I started into the Bible.

It has improved and satisfied me in ways which no other religion or philosophy has done. Did you reach jhana, the essence of the eighth component of the Eightfold Path?

Again ananda, what may satisfy you or me is of secondary importance. What matters is what satisfies the One who gives us every breath we breath.
No 'jhana' I did not reach but, thankfully, from his goodness The Living God reached out to me and I reached out and took that which He offered, Romans 6:23.
Go well, go wisely,
><>

 

[FireDragon76]

Christianity ultimately didn't "work" for me. The only answer to dukkha was to 1. pray about it or to 2. suffer, bearing God's will.

I see. Who says Christianity is supposed to "work"? That suggests an overly psychologized, overly therapeutic interpretation of the Gospel that fails to account for God's holiness or absolute claim over our lives, and our own finitude and sinfulness.

What churches did you belong to? I am curious to know. Your thinking sounds like you've adopted American pragmatism and individualism wholesale.

Have you considered the possibility that you have been deceived? How do you know this path you are on isn't in fact, as some of the Hindu's said about Buddhism, a way to take all the atheists to hell, down a primrose path? You seem to have an implicit trust just based off positive experiences. I'm sure lemmings have that trust too, right before they march off the cliff.

There are some unverified claims in the texts of early Buddhism, claims which I have not verified for myself. However, faith is largely irrelevant in early Buddhism; knowledge, instead, is most important.

This sounds more like a "Protestant", western interpretation of Buddhism that certain late 19th century Anglo-American converts introduced. Real Buddhism is just as much about believing unverifiable claims as any other religion. Otherwise, enlightenment has no context and no meaning. If there is no rebirth, no heavens or hells, then sitting around seeing into "reality" is a big waste of time.

 

[ananda]

Dear ananda, I would love to spend more time with you on this but the sun is shining and I have a gate to make, plus, plus, plus. All in an utterly Zen way of course.

I'm not sure if I understand your analogy, I do not practice Zen. Care to explain in more detail?

Just to say;
sin is well observable all around us. You do not 'observe' it within you? Shine the light. As for seeing God, Jesus, etc,
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
from Romans 1:19,20. Yes I know, to you a 'dogmatic allegation'.

I do see evils around me, but I also know and see for myself that our actions (like eating), and evils, are committed because of dukkha. I cannot see how our actions (like eating) are done because of sin.

Let the light shine o Lord.

Understanding the motivation behind our actions is a good thing. But concerning an unregenerated soul the explanation is not complicated - selfishness. What we do will always relate back to what we are. We can do all the messing around we want with what we do and with what we think but we cannot without God's gracious intervention change what we are. It was the realisation that Buddhism could not change the 'I' I didn't want to be that caused me to let it go. This was before I started into the Bible.

Again ananda, what may satisfy you or me is of secondary importance. What matters is what satisfies the One who gives us every breath we breath.
No 'jhana' I did not reach but, thankfully, from his goodness The Living God reached out to me and I reached out and took that which He offered, Romans 6:23.
Go well, go wisely,
><>

How can I verify these things, such as your claim that we have "unregenerated souls", or the existence of "God" or "the One"?

 

[ananda]

I see. Who says Christianity is supposed to "work"? That suggests an overly psychologized, overly therapeutic interpretation of the Gospel that fails to account for God's holiness or absolute claim over our lives, and our own finitude and sinfulness.

What churches did you belong to?

Have you considered the possibility that you have been deceived? How do you know this path you are on isn't in fact, as some of the Hindu's said about Buddhism, a way to take all the atheists to hell, down a primrose path? You seem to have an implicit trust just based off positive experiences. I'm sure lemmings have that trust too, right before they march off the cliff.

If it doesn't work, how am I supposed to know that it is the one and only correct path? How can I know I've been deceived, without any sort of confirmation? With that argument, can you not see how it can be used to defend any other faith-based religion, like Islam, or Zoroastrianism, etc.? How have you verified Christianity for yourself, besides how it "works" for you in some way?

I was part of various conservative, evangelical, and moderate/mainstream churches during different parts of my life.

This sounds more like a "Protestant", western interpretation of Buddhism that certain late 19th century Anglo-American converts introduced. Real Buddhism is just as much about believing unverifiable claims as any other religion. Otherwise, enlightenment has no context and no meaning.

I speak only from my experience with the early Buddhist suttas in the Tipitaka and Nikayas. After five+ years of reading, I have not found a single instance of "blind faith" in unverifiable claims being taught in the early texts; instead I see countless teachings such as: "The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated [nibbana], who has severed all links, destroyed all causes, and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men." Dhp 97

If this is "fake Buddhism", then I prefer it over the "Real Buddhism" you allege, since I personally know and apprehend the teachings of the former.

 

[afishamongmany]

Ananda the Zen bit was just lighthearted intro to the conversation. Like - I'm busy but it's cool.

How can I verify these things, such as your claim that we have "unregenerated souls", or the existence of "God" or "the One"?

As I said
"... we cannot, without God's gracious intervention, change what we are."
You are an unbeliever (in the christian sense of the word) so humanly speaking there is nothing you can do or I (and others) can say to change that. But God ...?
Shine the light O Lord!
><>

 

[FireDragon76]

If it doesn't work, how am I supposed to know that it is the one and only correct path? How can I know I've been deceived, without any sort of confirmation?

I guess you don't understand the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian faith. The Holy Spirit puts that knowledge of God into our heart. Satan will try to take it away, of course, by having us becoming apostate and reject that faith, and we can always listen to him, we are free to do so.

With that argument, can you not see how it can be used to defend any other faith-based religion, like Islam, or Zoroastrianism, etc.? How have you verified Christianity for yourself, besides how it "works" for you in some way?

This difference is that Jesus Christ is the conquerer of death. Those other guys are in the grave.

I was part of various conservative, evangelical, and moderate/mainstream churches during different parts of my life.

Which tells me very little.

I have not found a single instance of "blind faith" in unverifiable claims being taught in the early texts; instead I see countless teachings such as: "The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated [nibbana], who has severed all links, destroyed all causes, and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men." Dhp 97

Christianity is also not blind faith. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by many people, as Paul attested to in his epistles. Up until relatively recently, it's something few intelligent people in the western world actually doubted. And I would add that many of their doubts stem from emotivism and political causes that are hostile to the Christian faith, rather than the right use of reason.

 

[ananda]

If there is no rebirth, no heavens or hells, then sitting around seeing into "reality" is a big waste of time.

By practicing Dhamma, the Buddha allegedly stated:

"The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’ “The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble. “The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’ “The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’ “This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won these four assurances in this very life." (Anguttara Nikaya 3.65 Kesaputtiya Sutta)​

Yes, the Buddha supposedly taught rebirth in various heavens and hells, but even those are not to be taken only on faith; the texts teach that upon the personal attainment of the fourth jhana, the disciple can gain the divine eye through which he may see these heavens and hells for himself. But whether or not these heavens and hells exist is ultimately irrelevant to the practice in the here-and-now.

 

[ananda]

Ananda the Zen bit was just lighthearted intro to the conversation. Like - I'm busy but it's cool.

As I said
"... we cannot, without God's gracious intervention, change what we are."
You are an unbeliever (in the christian sense of the word) so humanly speaking there is nothing you can do or I (and others) can say to change that. But God ...?
Shine the light O Lord!
><>

How long does it take to gain that direct knowledge of God?

 

[ananda]

I guess you don't understand the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian faith. The Holy Spirit puts that knowledge of God into our heart. Satan will try to take it away, of course, by having us becoming apostate and reject that faith, and we can always listen to him, we are free to do so.

I have no direct, personal knowledge of the Holy Spirit, or of God, or Satan.

This difference is that Jesus Christ is the conquerer of death. Those other guys are in the grave.

I have no direct, personal knowledge of Jesus Christ conquering death.

Which tells me very little.

What question did you seek to answer?

Christianity is also not blind faith. The resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by many people, as Paul attested to in his epistles. Up until relatively recently, it's something few intelligent people in the western world actually doubted. And I would add that many of their doubts stem from emotivism and political causes that are hostile to the Christian faith, rather than the right use of reason.

I have no direct, personal knowledge of Jesus, or of Paul, or any other alleged witness. I suppose my point is that I have not witnessed any of these things for myself.

I could write a text stating that I witnessed Mohammed on his flying horse. Would future generations be operating in the sphere of knowledge, or in the sphere of blind faith, if they believed my story?

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you want to have knowledge of those things, or just find ways of justifying your lack of knowledge?

 

[ananda]

Do you want to have knowledge of those things, or just find ways of justifying your lack of knowledge?

I've asked multiple times in this thread alone, regarding the question about gaining personal knowledge of "those things".

 

[Wordkeeper]

Is "a life lived with difficulty" any different than dukkha? It sounds like your idea of "tumor" is the same as mine.

You missed the point again. You focus on the headache of dukkha and miss the tumor of pointless existence.

Is it your claim that all Jesus did to redeem mankind was that he went out on a limb?

The ministry of Jesus is polyvalent, having multiple values, blessings. It is redemption through penal substitution, through meeting ransom, through victory over Satan, etc. But most important, because he was an exemplar, it was the revelation of the purpose of the creation of Man.


The principle he taught and defended was that you can't make progress without submission. That is a repetitive motif in nature, society and other contexts. The process points to the Way, how to fulfill the purpose of your existence.


First he stated the principle:


John 12

24Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it produces a lot of grain.


Then he modelled it, died to himself:


Matthew 4
3Then the tempter came. “Since you are the Son of God,” he said, “tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”

4But he answered, “It is written,

‘One must not live on bread alone,
but on every word coming
out of the mouth of God.’”b


Meaning he didn't use the empowerment of the Spirit to cause men to fall at his feet, but offered himself to be a vessel to exemplify what God's Way planned for men was.


John 14

10You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I don't speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.


Not an easy thing to do, handing control of your life to God. But then, how do you tell someone God is trustworthy, unless you demonstrate it yourself?

I've yet to see proof of the unseen past, in your claims here, or otherwise.

You can see people starting out to explain a difficult topic and failing. It didn't happen to me. That's proof. Better people do it with healing, answered prayer. All doing the same things that the works of Moses did, causing to happen the same things his signs caused to happen: prising people out of serving Mammon to serve God. And there are even better ways than that. Which are out of the scope of this discussion. Even so, first things first.


You may not be impressed, but here's the thing: I am! Not by what I achieved, but the new things the Spirit revealed even as I stepped out unprepared.

Not at all. Considering that the fundamental problem of the purpose of my existence is dukkha, my spiritual walk addresses that issue directly, and leads to states of bliss I've found nowhere else in ordinary life.

Leaving the tumor unattended.

Do you pray towards Mecca, as required by Allah?

The Aramaic word for "God" in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for "God" than "Allah".
Allah - Wikipedia


Allah - Wikipedia

I deny that revelation is equal to direct knowledge. In fact, the concept of revelation is opposed to direct knowledge.

Wise men counselled kings not to invade india. The land and it's beliefs never resisted invasions. They simply allowed them in and corroded them, like acid. That's how Hinduism and Buddhism corrupted and destroyed competitive world views. Making unspecifics out of specifics.

 

[ananda]

You missed the point again. You focus on the headache of dukkha and miss the tumor of pointless existence.

I do not see the connection between all of our every day activities and "pointless existence". Do we eat because of a pointless existence, or because of dukkha?

The ministry of Jesus is polyvalent, having multiple values, blessings. It is redemption through penal substitution, through meeting ransom, through victory over Satan, etc. But most important, because he was an exemplar, it was the revelation of the purpose of the creation of Man.

The principle he taught and defended was that you can't make progress without submission. That is a repetitive motif in nature, society and other contexts. The process points to the Way, how to fulfill the purpose of your existence.

First he stated the principle: John 12
24Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it produces a lot of grain.

Then he modelled it, died to himself:
Matthew 4
3Then the tempter came. “Since you are the Son of God,” he said, “tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”

4But he answered, “It is written,

‘One must not live on bread alone,
but on every word coming
out of the mouth of God.’”b

Meaning he didn't use the empowerment of the Spirit to cause men to fall at his feet, but offered himself to be a vessel to exemplify what God's Way planned for men was.
John 14
10You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I don't speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.

Not an easy thing to do, handing control of your life to God. But then, how do you tell someone God is trustworthy, unless you demonstrate it yourself?

I tried it for 30 years. It didn't bring me any closer to knowledge of God or of Jesus. What do you suppose went wrong?

You can see people starting out to explain a difficult topic and failing. It didn't happen to me. That's proof. Better people do it with healing, answered prayer. All doing the same things that the works of Moses did, causing to happen the same things his signs caused to happen: prising people out of serving Mammon to serve God. And there are even better ways than that. Which are out of the scope of this discussion. Even so, first things first.

You may not be impressed, but here's the thing: I am! Not by what I achieved, but the new things the Spirit revealed even as I stepped out unprepared.

Miracles do not prove that the (alleged) individual who answered it is Almighty and Infinite, however.

Leaving the tumor unattended.

"Pointless existence" as the motivation for all our actions does not make sense to me.

The Aramaic word for "God" in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for "God" than "Allah". Allah - Wikipedia Allah - Wikipedia

Do you do what Allah requires, including praying towards Mecca?

Wise men counselled kings not to invade india. The land and it's beliefs never resisted invasions. They simply allowed them in and corroded them, like acid. That's how Hinduism and Buddhism corrupted and destroyed competitive world views. Making unspecifics out of specifics.

I prefer to see it as being tried by fire, and persisting.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I do not see the connection between all of our every day activities and "pointless existence". Do we eat because of a pointless existence, or because of dukkha?

Let's lay it out for clarity.

Buddhists teach men eat to avoid the suffering of hunger.

You can make more similar statements:

Men work to avoid the suffering of poverty, lack of resources.

Buddhists also teach that you needed to attack the root of the problem. If you determine you could do without a majority of those resources, you could avoid the problem of suffering caused by the lack. So if a person thought he needed to work extra hard or start a business so that he can buy an expensive car, if instead he removed the desire for the car, then he would neither have to work more nor feel depressed at not having the car!

So the statement:

Men work to avoid the suffering of poverty, lack of resources.


which explained a way to avoid suffering could be replaced in the life of the person experiencing that type suffering, like so:

Men analyse the phenomena of craving,
find a way to neutralise it,
to avoid the suffering of poverty, lack of resources.

So whilst unenlightened men fall prey to craving, which is a vicious cycle, enlightened men find a way to end that cycle.

Unfortunately, whilst eating to avoid dukkha is outright harmful (obesity, people!), or learning a martial art to fight off those who can harm you in combat, reflecting to avoid dukkha is also harmful.

All that needs to be known about God and his requirements of man can be seen in Nature .

Effort must result in gain. If animals are born from one womb, eat, rest, reproduce and disappear into another womb, of the earth, leaving nothing of benefit to themselves, then that one animal life was a waste. Of course as stated, animals aren't aware of the absurdity of their pointless existence, but men have it rubbed in their face all day.

Unless they are distracted into focusing on lesser issues.

Luke 12
4“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

If a ruler appears and tells you you have been enjoying his protection for many years and now he needs you to pay taxes for the protection provided, you can't reply you've never heard of him. Ignorance of requirements is no defence against the requirement. Besides, the announcement explains why you were manufactured by that ruler, and opens up a whole new world of fulfillment to your existence.

Before that you had no answer to why you were given a slot in time and all you did never benefited you substantially, permanently.

I tried it for 30 years. It didn't bring me any closer to knowledge of God or of Jesus. What do you suppose went wrong?

A man went around the world looking for the most unique and most expensive treasure and found it only when he returned home.

If you asked God the question on the day of your auditing, he'd probably ask you why you never carried out the simplest of due diligences.

Pray.

This way.

"Give us this day our daily bread."

It wasn't Moses who provided bread, but God.

Jesus never upped his game by joining self improvement classes or hiring Schwarzenegger but by living on every word that proceed ed from God's mouth.

So ask for the bread from heaven.

And for the teeth to chew it with:

11What father among you, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish,k would give him a snake instead of the fish? 12Or if he asks for an egg, would he give him a scorpion? 13So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who keep asking him!”

Allah - Wikipedia

Do you do what Allah requires, including praying towards Mecca?

"Allah" is misapplied in Islam. The mark of a good worldview is consistency. Islam majors in abrogation. That's why men love it, it tickles their ears. It reinvents itself every generation. More women after a war? Polygamise (I just invented a word!) the view/teachings.

I prefer to see it as being tried by fire, and persisting.

Unfortunately the world doesn't run on your preferences, just because you say so.

 

[ananda]

...reflecting to avoid dukkha is also harmful.

Why?

All that needs to be known about God and his requirements of man can be seen in Nature .

It seems that you are inferring "God" from Nature. When I see Nature, I think "Nature".

Likewise, many Christians state love is proof of "God". I say love is proof for love; others infer love as originating from "God". Yet others infer love as originating from Jesus, or Krishna, or Aphrodite. Early Buddhism sees no reason to reach for any of the above inferences.

Nature is proof for Nature. Love is proof for Love. Neither are proofs for "God", Krishna, Aphrodite, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If a ruler appears and tells you you have been enjoying his protection for many years and now he needs you to pay taxes for the protection provided, you can't reply you've never heard of him. Ignorance of requirements is no defence against the requirement. Besides, the announcement explains why you were manufactured by that ruler, and opens up a whole new world of fulfillment to your existence.

Using your analogy: Christianity claims one (or three rulers). Islam claims another ruler, with different characteristics. Hinduism claims yet other ruler(s). Etc. I invite the alleged "ruler" to appear. Until then, I am agnostic to its/his existence.

My personal experience with Reality and its Laws seems to point to the non-existence of "God" as the Abrahamic religions understand it.

Before that you had no answer to why you were given a slot in time and all you did never benefited you substantially, permanently.

I believe I do; it is to learn the lesson of dukkha which swings back and forth in front of our faces every second of every day, and those who can observe that fact, should attempt to transcend it.

A man went around the world looking for the most unique and most expensive treasure and found it only when he returned home. If you asked God the question on the day of your auditing, he'd probably ask you why you never carried out the simplest of due diligences. Pray. This way. "Give us this day our daily bread." It wasn't Moses who provided bread, but God. Jesus never upped his game by joining self improvement classes or hiring Schwarzenegger but by living on every word that proceed ed from God's mouth. So ask for the bread from heaven. And for the teeth to chew it with:

I believe I addressed this in post 204. I did so, for 30+ years.

Allah - Wikipedia "Allah" is misapplied in Islam. The mark of a good worldview is consistency. Islam majors in abrogation. That's why men love it, it tickles their ears. It reinvents itself every generation. More women after a war? Polygamise (I just invented a word!) the view/teachings.

Okay, I see much reinvention in Christianity as well. Do you pray towards Mecca, as God wishes?

Unfortunately the world doesn't run on your preferences, just because you say so.

IMO that statement seemingly applies more to disciples of faith-based religions. I stick with what is known ... not preferences.