That is why even the most powerful man is fundamentally weak - he doesn't control when he will lose his power. Thus relying on his power for his happiness is futile in the final analysis.

Because he has no control he needs someone to blame for everything. That is what he NEEDS god for, a scapegoat.

Because he has no control he needs someone to blame for everything. That is what he NEEDS god for, a scapegoat. — Sir2u

Why does he need to blame someone in the first place, unless he presupposes that he deserves to have strength & control to begin with? :s

"Nietzsche was fundamentally right, that if there is no God, then all is resolved into a will-to-power. And Spinoza was right too, who defined joy as man's passage from a lesser to a greater perfection! But how can man pass from a lesser to a greater perfection if he is fundamentally weak? He cannot rely on himself! Therefore there is either despair or submission to God - otherwise one is deprived of joy. One's own self is a nothing, a meagre worm who cannot do anything. Poor Nietzsche - he saw it for himself. His "Ubermensch" was powerless against his own condition. His "Ubermensch" couldn't treat his dementia - behold how the madman actually proclaimed God to be dead, but in truth, it was Nietzsche who was dead. He still rots in the earth, eaten by vermin to this day, his stinking corpse forgotten by all..."

Have you actually read Nietzsche? Have you read for example The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals? I dont mean to be rude, but you have, it seems to me, either misunderstood the real depth behind his thought or you just dont like what you read and judge it by that.

Why does he need to blame someone in the first place

He does not NEED to, but most people blame their screw ups on someone or something.
Bad luck, god's displeasure with them, allah's will, Murphy' law all get the blame.

They also seem quite willing to let them take the credit for the things that happen in their lives.
I was lucky, god has been good to me, it was allah's will.

Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals — Beebert

I've read these two.

The Gay Science — Beebert

I've never finished The Gay Science.

I dont mean to be rude, but you have, it seems to me, either misunderstood the real depth behind his thought or you just dont like what you read and judge it by that. — Beebert

Perhaps you can enlighten me then, what a splendid opportunity for both of us! You can teach me and get joy out of sharing your knowledge, and I can learn something new!

He does not NEED to, but most people blame their screw ups on someone or something.
Bad luck, god's displeasure with them, allah's will, Murphy' law all get the blame. — Sir2u

But you told me before that that's what he NEEDS God for. But if he doesn't need to blame anyone, then he doesn't need God, so it seems that you're now contradicting what you first said.

The fact that people seek someone to blame is something that must be questioned, because they unfairly presume that they deserve something in the first place. So granted that this supposition has no foundation, they should rationally drop it. Instead they should affirm the truth - they desire so and so, and their desires can get frustrated. But they have no "right" to have their desires fulfilled in the first place.

They also seem quite willing to let them take the credit for the things that happen in their lives.
I was lucky, god has been good to me, it was allah's will. — Sir2u

In many cases that's absolutely true. I have no clue how some situations quickly and out of nowhere turned from hopeless to my favour. What am I supposed to say? It was due to me? I know it wasn't...

But if he doesn't need to blame anyone, then he doesn't need God, so it seems that you're now contradicting what you first said.

I don't need to blame anyone for the problems in life, unless I know that someone actually caused them.
So I don't need a god, no contradiction at all.

In many cases that's absolutely true. I have no clue how some situations quickly and out of nowhere turned from hopeless to my favour. What am I supposed to say? It was due to me? I know it wasn't...

The wings of a butterfly.

I don't need to blame anyone for the problems in life, unless I know that someone actually caused them.
So I don't need a god, no contradiction at all. — Sir2u

Right, but what does this have to do with your weakness? You're weak, you don't want to be weak, therefore your only real hope is God - no other hope can even be conceived.

To start with, Nietzsche didnt base his philosophy on his belief in his own strength or health, but in his will to health. One of his most important concepts is Amor Fati. He knew in a sense man's powerlessness, he wasn't stupid. I find that quite obvious. He spoke about how to handle this situation, one's attitude to life. And regarding the will to power, the most important thing there is his Conviction that it was basically what life was. You find especially in his Genealogy of Morals, very in-depth interpretation of the often underlying processes in man that leads to life-denial and self-denial. Will to power. Religions have often separated the sacred and the profane, which Nietzsche found disgusting, and he gives a thorough explanation about this in many places, where he explains the reason for this thinking. A true "enlightened" man would say as William Blake: "Everything is holy". Or more precise perhaps that at least everything is sacred. This enlightened thought is found in The Baghavad Gita, in some Christian mystics, in the Sacraments of the church (transforming profane things in to sacred things), in Dostoevsky, Blake, Walt Whitman etc. And IMO quite obviously Nietzsche touched on this too. It is just that he, for psychological and cultural reasons, expressed this in a very different way.

Right, but what does this have to do with your weakness?

Who says I am weak?

You're weak, you don't want to be weak, therefore your only real hope is God - no other hope can even be conceived.

If my only hope is a god that refuses to even prove it exists, then I am more stupid than weak.
LUCKILY, I am not weak enough to need it. If I ever do need it, it will because my mind is too weak to fight off the stupidity and by then I won't even care.

his will to health — Beebert

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all? Maybe I "will" to have 10 billion dollars... where are they?! :s

One of his most important concepts is Amor Fati. He knew in a sense man's powerlessness, he wasn't stupid. I find that quite obvious. He spoke about how to handle this situation, one's attitude to life. — Beebert

How shall we handle this then?

And regarding the will to power, the most important thing there is his Conviction that it was basically what life was. — Beebert

Yes, I disagree with that. If life is will-to-power then we can never be happy, because we can never achieve power.

Who says I am weak? — Sir2u

You are. Any day you could become a bed-ridden person. ALS, a stroke, a car accident - who knows man, who knows. You can't control it.

If my only hope is a god that refuses to even prove it exists — Sir2u

If He proved that He exists, then you would have no free will, for you would be forced to believe. The whole point is that there should be enough light for those who want to believe and enough darkness for those who don't - that was Pascal's point.

Yes and probably, we can never be happy, that is one thing that Nietzsche despised about christianity. That it became heavenly utilitarian. And also that it Said "Suffering is bad and its opposite good". Nietzsche found it wrong to say that suffering is bad. One shall affirm life despite suffering. For example, just because Nietzsche went mad, You say he failed. Why is that? It is just as much part of life as Everything else and it was his fate. The test of whether he succeded or not is if he would have embraced the idea of re-living this life and fate of his time and time again in all eternity. Remember, Nietzsche knew suffering. He had for example constant migrane. Life was, in a sense, just because of his physical health, horrible for him If he would value it in terms of "This is the amount of power I have if I equal power with complete Control over my material physical health and pleasure", but he yet wanted to embrace life. And he refused to view life as complete shit despite this, and he would certainly have had a reason to have become a typically other-worldly person: He was deep, he recognized hypocrisy and herd-mentality, he was alone, he suffered a lot (not Only mentally but physically, which is very important). He refused other-worldliness because it was for him a Sign of giving up embracing his life despite all his suffering. Him Walking around in his physical pain and waiting for something better Beyond was for him equal to nihilism.

You are. Any day you could become a bed-ridden person. ALS, a stroke, a car accident - who knows man, who knows. You can't control it.

None of that makes me weak, it just makes me human. You are going in circles with that.

If He proved that He exists, then you would have no free will, for you would be forced to believe.

So it doesn't reveal itself so that I will think I have free will, but because it exists and is hidden I don't have freewill? Or does my freewill expire when it reveals itself to me?

The whole point is that there should be enough light for those who want to believe and enough darkness for those who don't - that was Pascal's point.

But is Pascal's point correct? Does what he say actually apply to everyone?


And God can provide this infinite hope, for "nothing is impossible for God"

And there it is, man's need for HOPE. God willing everything will work out well, if it is not willing then it is god's fault.

I asked you some specific questions, but in this post of yours you've gone on an entirely different path which has little to do with what I was asking. So please try to answer each question individually, otherwise the conversation cannot be productive.

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all? — Agustino

How shall we handle this then? — Agustino

Yes and probably, we can never be happy — Beebert

Right, so you don't have any goods to sell then, why should I be interested?

And also that it Said "Suffering is bad and its opposite good". — Beebert

:s - quite the contrary, suffering for God is good in Christianity, why do you think Christianity has all the martyrs that it does?

One shall affirm life despite suffering. — Beebert

Yes, N was incapable to do this. He had no means.

The test of whether he succeded or not is if he would have embraced the idea of re-living this life and fate of his time and time again in all eternity. — Beebert

A childish and stupid idea in the end, for no one can re-live his life anyway.

Life was, in a sense, just because of his physical health, horrible for him If he would value it in terms of "This is the amount of power I have if I equal power with complete Control over my material physical health and pleasure", but he yet wanted to embrace life. — Beebert

Yes, he did want, but he never could.

He refused other-worldliness because it was for him a Sign of giving up embracing his life despite all his suffering. Him Walking around in his physical pain and waiting for something better Beyond was for him equal to nihilism. — Beebert

Nietzsche wanted to know the Truth apart from Christ, but there is no such Truth. That is why he concluded that truth is ugly. Yes, the truth of the human condition is ugly, that's exactly why we need the Truth. Instead, he abandoned the Truth for truth - whereas Dostoyevsky would abandon the truth for Christ if he had to (his own statement). This was interesting.

None of that makes me weak, it just makes me human. You are going in circles with that. — Sir2u

Calling it human does not change its wretchedness.

So it doesn't reveal itself so that I will think I have free will, but because it exists and is hidden I don't have freewill? Or does my freewill expire when it reveals itself to me? — Sir2u

How could you choose to not believe if God fully revealed Himself? If you cannot choose to not believe (except in bad faith), then on this question you wouldn't have free will.

But is Pascal's point correct? Does what he say actually apply to everyone? — Sir2u

Yes, I certainly think he was.

I will answer you more thouroughly later today, but right now I am busy. Though I Think I must say it is really pointless to answer your questions and argue with you in favor for Nietzsche, because you seem to quite clearly have made up your mind about him. Regarding Dostoevsky's comment on Christ he quite obviously exposes the truth about most christians: They cling to Christ even if it is false. Om other words, they want Christ first and foremost, not truth. Now Simone Weil agreed that Christ is Truth, but her comment on Dostoevsky's statement was that he committed blasphemy when he said he wanted Christ more than truth.

but her comment on Dostoevsky's statement was that he committed blasphemy when he said he wanted Christ more than truth. — Beebert

I would think that D differentiated between truth, and Truth. So yes, D would reject the truth of this world for the Truth of Christ. The will-to-power can be thought of as the truth of this world, and that is rejected for the Truth of Christ, like Alyosha and Fr. Zossima.

That is not what Dostoevsky meant. He meant that if it was proved to him that Christ wasn't God, that christianity wasn't true, he would still follow Christ rather than Truth. You and I agree about in thing though: We both prefer Dostoevsky to Nietzsche.

That is not what Dostoevsky meant. He meant that if it was proved to him that Christ wasn't God, that christianity wasn't true, he would still follow Christ rather than Truth — Beebert

Depends what you mean by "true".

So if one cannot rely on their own power for their own happiness, clearly one is in NEED of God. — Agustino

This doesn't necessarily mean that they need God. They simply need power - which can come from different sources, like science discovering ways in which to prolong your life and improve your health.

They simply need power - which can come from different sources, like science discovering ways in which to prolong your life and improve your health. — Harry Hindu

Regardless of what science discovers, it's not enough. We'll always be at the mercy of things that are outside of our control.

In this case that there ia no God. Dostoevsky would prefer to be a Don Quijote then to facing the truth if that would be the truth

Regarding Agustino's eloquently worded original post, I would agree with (or at the very least not disagree with) nearly all of it. A person, taken in absolute isolation, is practically powerless. Like an astronaut floating in empty space, there is no up or down, nothing to stand on, and not much to do. People in a way are like a wonderfully powerfuI cell phone. Disconnected from the internet and having lost its electrical charge, even the best phone is about as useful as a brick. I believe it to be equally important for a person to both recognize their limits, and not despise themselves, nature, others, "God", for those limits. All the while improving one's mind, health, relationships, finances, etc.

(I apologize in advance for perhaps not directly further addressing the stated topic (Man's Weakness as Argument For God) in this post. But i am attempting to address it indirectly, at first. I am still sorting this out, and kind of thinking out loud. And i am certain that some philosophers have covered this much more completely. If someone could provide particular examples, it would be helpful. But anyway... )

In my particular spiritual search, i have attempted (as many have) to find ways to both:

• 1) Approach the Creator (or "Source", "Ground of Being", "God", though i try not to overuse that word. Perhaps it is my superstition or is simply over cautiousness).
  
  And
  
  
• 2) Approach the idea of the Creator. (Or "subject", or "potentiality", for lack of better words) of the Creator.

During my search a distinctive characteristic about the two approachs seems to have become evident. And it is just that... that there IS a subtle but significant difference and distinction between the two approaches. A difference between approaching God/Source directly, and thinking about the idea of God/Source and all that might entail. I will call the former "G-presence"; and call the latter "G-idea". (Probably awkward terms, but I'll use them for now.)

Now, I would like to note that, as i see it, the relationship between these two approaches is complementary. Not competitive and exclusive. More of a Yin/Yang dynamic. NOT right/wrong. NOT good/bad. Important distinction, i think. So i make some distinction between the two approaches, even though there is overlap between them. In a way that one sees the difference between yellow and blue, even though they can blend seamlessly into green, for example.

Approaching the "G-presence" would fall in the category of worship, religion (in the best sense), faith, devotion. The spirit, soul, transpersonal, and heart-centered aspects of a person (love and compassion) would take the lead here. The intellect is still being used, it is just taking more a supporting role, like drums playing during a guitar solo. (Of course, the intellect is needed to even understand or formulate beliefs.) In this approach, particular beliefs and practices are part and parcel of the whole effort. It can be a mixture or blending of beliefs and practices, but it has to be something in particular. For example, it has to be particular in the sense that someone can talk about physical exercise in general. But when it comes to doing exercise, it has to be a specific thing, like running or push-ups. Prayer, meditation, chanting, communal ritual, etc. are examples. And these practices are strongly associated with the beliefs that support and give rise to them.

(As an aside, I would say that this approach (religious and devotional) tends to work best imho when there is feedback between belief and practice. For example, a particular person has Roman Catholic beliefs, in general. As a expression of those beliefs, this person prays the Rosary. They enter a prayerful and contemplative state. This state in a way actualizes the belief into a deeply-felt experience. This "expanded" state of mind is then used to clarify and prioritize one's beliefs. Then this subtly changed belief affects further practice, and so on. Back and forth, belief and practice balancing and refining each other. Not entirely dissimilar to the scientific model of theory and experiment.)

About the second way, the approach of the "G-idea". This I suppose could be called the "God of the philosophers". Or to refer to the Tao Te Ching... it is "the Tao that can be spoken of" as opposed to the "eternal Tao" itself, which CANNOT be spoken of. (At least not turning it into a reflection or image, at best. Nonetheless, the Tao Te Ching doesn't say the eternal Tao cannot be experienced though. But this would fall in the G-presence category, according to my distinction.) In talking about God, the Creator, the Divine, etc, intellect and rationality are the main players. However, the spirit, soul, beliefs/practices, and experiences are still right there, even though taking a supporting role at the moment.

The approach of the G-idea, talking about the Eternal, because it is THINKING primarily, benefits from an open-ended, scientific experiment kind of attitude. Suppositions could be made that would be antithetical and counterproductive to the first approach, that of "G-presence". And these suppositions could be made "in good faith", meaning with the intent of curiousity or clarification, rather than simplistic and gross religion-bashing.

But in engaging in discussion and thought of the "G-idea", one's specific religious beliefs are perhaps best put aside for the moment. Not forgotten or denied, just put temporarily aside. Or if one wishes, a specific religious belief could be made into a general philosophical hypothesis. Whether or not it is then proven, or even if it is even possible to prove x,y, or z religious belief is another matter.

So for example, taking such particular tenets as the number or gender of (the) god(s) as absolute and obvious FACT, is to go against the scientific approach, the philosophical method, or at the very least it doesn't "approach the G-idea" fairly and openly. So to say with all certainty, that that the number of the gods is (...) and the gender of such is (...), simply because this is the "best belief", or it is in a particular scripture, or is just obvious, all this is begging the question, is presuming to know the answer of the question being asked. Thus it is acting in bad faith, so to speak (if not also committing some logical fallacy, such as arguing from authority). It like a stage actor breaking character for five minutes to send a text message... in the middle of a show. Nothing wrong with texting, but the circumstances strongly discourage it.

Perhaps these distinctions are all very obvious. And maybe they can be summed up as "the God of the Old/New Testament" as opposed to "the God of the philosophers." But are the two necessarily and completely different? I would say no. As i said above, i am just trying to work out the fine points about both, and how to get the most out of both approaches. Thank you. :)

So if one cannot rely on their own power for their own happiness, clearly one is in NEED of God. Indeed, a man sitting in a hospital bed unable to move would be a fool to say that he doesn't at least desire that God exists. — Agustino

I don't get it. Why would a man lying on his death bed desire God when God, if it exists, created the circumstances of him being on his death bed in the first place as part of God's plan? This is what believers do - they try to separate God from the way things are, as if God can save them from the universe yet God created the universe and our limited power in it. When we starkly feel our lack of power in the face of natural events, why turn to the one being that created those circumstances in the first place? It would seem to me that one would want to turn away from God, not turn to it.

I don't get it. Why would a man lying on his death bed desire God when God, if it exists, created the circumstances of him being on his death bed in the first place as part of God's plan? This is what believers do - they try to separate God from the way things are, as if God can save them from the universe yet God created the universe and our limited power in it. When we starkly feel our lack of power in the face of natural events, why turn to the one being that created those circumstances in the first — Harry Hindu

Man doesn't deserve anything, so why would he turn away? God doesn't HAVE TO give him what he wants. You're talking as if the man in question believes he deserves something from God. But prayer would be just speaking one's heart to God, for God is one's Creator.

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all?
— Agustino

Nietzsche said Will to health, not health. Living for rewards is not the point here. Who Said anything about something being helpful? Nietzsche spoke about psycholoical truths if You Will. As You know, he wanted life to be sacred and beautiful as it IS, not as people wish it to be. That is the point. Life is what it is, beyond good and evil.

How shall we handle this then?
— Agustino

By embracing your life, affirming it instead of wishing for something else, live despite of, not living in the past with regrets for example. Affirmation and Amor fati is how to handle it. But there is so much more to say here. This is just basics on the surface.

"quite the contrary, suffering for God is good in Christianity, why do you think Christianity has all the martyrs that it does?"

Yes, christianity made a whole system of redemption out of suffering. But why? Because they couldnt accept suffering. And christianity still finds suffering bad, otherwise there would be no plan to end it in the next world. Suffering for a reward, basically... About the martyrs; well. Psychologically their behavior wouldnt be hard to understand according to Nietzsche.

"Yes, N was incapable to do this. He had no means."

Ridiculous. Read Nietzsche and You see e had. One example of a man worthy of respect according to Nietzsche is Beethoven: He affirmed life and lived out his call despite everything. He Because deaf; yet he continued to compose and as a result created perhaps the greatest music ever written.

"A childish and stupid idea in the end, for no one can re-live his life anyway."

Just Your opinion. I could say the same about christianity. "A childish and stupid Idea anyway. No one will be raised from the dead or have an immortal soul and an eternal life anyway". Eternal recurrence is an old Idea. But Nietzsche mainly used it as a thought experiment.

"Nietzsche wanted to know the Truth apart from Christ, but there is no such Truth. That is why he concluded that truth is ugly. Yes, the truth of the human condition is ugly, that's exactly why we need the Truth"

Also your values and opinions. To me, Beethoven's life isnt ugly But beautiful. Though I have to admit that Jesus life too was beautiful and admirable, and I DONT believe that christianity is a silly idea. I dont agree with Nietzsche entirely about christianity, because I think he went too far. I like Dostoevsky. And Blake.

Calling it human does not change its wretchedness.

Never said it did, just that those things are what makes us human. I am not an eternal robot.

How could you choose to not believe if God fully revealed Himself?
When that happens I will even sing like the Beatles. I'm a believer.

Yes, I certainly think he was.

Unfortunately, what you think has very little value to me, for the same reason that what I think has little value to you.
Could you please supply some concrete evidence.

Man doesn't deserve anything, so why would he turn away? God doesn't HAVE TO give him what he wants. You're talking as if the man in question believes he deserves something from God. But prayer would be just speaking one's heart to God, for God is one's Creator. — Agustino

You're talking as if the man's plea for God to change his plan isn't part of God's plan. God, if it exists and is omniscient (and if he isn't then he shouldn't be ascribed the label, "God"), already knows that the man will make a plea to God to prolong his life and already knows what God's answer will be. Because God's plan is predetermined, praying and the answer to prayers are already laid out in the plan.

It's ironic that theists complain about the determinism of science when it is their own beliefs that imply that determinism exists as part of God's plan. We are no more than automaton playing out the God's plan.

Your opening post reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes. Ordinary clothes are relatively weak, so what we need is some powerful new clothes which don't suffer from this weakness. Only you can't see them. The atheist is like the child who cries out "But these people aren't wearing anything at all!".

The real weakness is that of the Emperor and those who go along with it. The child exposes this weakness. There is strength in acknowledging imperfection and the harshness of reality, yet affirming life in spite of this, which is what Agustino fails to appreciate in Nietzsche. Our concern should be with this world, and we should not allow ourselves to be duped into otherworldly concerns. In fact, one could argue that it is our duty to burst this deceptive bubble, much like the child does.