Religion The God Question - part 2

[darth_timon]

Go where the evidence leads. It doesn't lead to the existence of a deity, hence why it can only ever be an article of faith, until proven otherwise. If you choose to believe, more power to you.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Hmmm.....Seems like you just gave it some more regard.....In fact....You can't regard anything physical without it.

Child's play.

My great nephew can play a better game at marbles than this.

When did god decide to intervene and give special treatment to one type of hominid?
And why that particular one?
There were plenty that went before it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

All evidence ultimately leads back to one's own conscience....That is the Alpha & the Omega....Without it, as a base starting point, no one can type meaningful, sensible words in these forums to begin with.

When did god decide to intervene and give special treatment to one type of hominid?
And why that particular one?
There were plenty that went before it.

All homo sapien society's have believed in a deity of one type or another.....Such a phenomenon is commensurate with our higher degree of self-awareness.....Man is made in God's image.

 

[chelseacarlton]

All evidence ultimately leads back to one's own conscience....That is the Alpha & the Omega....Without it, as a base starting point, no one can type meaningful, sensible words in these forums to begin with.



All homo sapien society's have believed in a deity of one type or another.....Such a phenomenon is commensurate with our higher degree of self-awareness.....Man is made in God's image.

Avoidance
Lol

 

[Procrastinator35]

Avoidance
Lol

Incomprehension.....Again.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Incomprehension.....Again.

Which one mate?
When and why?
Most early humans wouldn't have given a rats arse about a god or gods as they were dying from predation,hunger,disease,teeth,child bearing,poisons,turf wars etc etc
Where was their god then?
Did god not care?
Why step in 3000,2000 and apparently again(for the last time-lol islam)1300 yrs ago?
The books of Abraham are as believable as Mormonism or Scientology,that is 0%.
As my 5 yr old daughter says "if there is a god,why doesn't it show itself"?
Because it ain't there,no was and never will be!
You can to believe in anything you want,just as long as you know you are most likely wrong and can admit that until you provide such evidence!
That's how we are where we are,not because of faith in an absent!

 

[Procrastinator35]

As my 5 yr old daughter says "if there is a god,why doesn't it show itself"?
Because it ain't there,no was and never will be!
You can to believe in anything you want,just as long as you know you are most likely wrong and can admit that until you provide such evidence!
That's how we are where we are,not because of faith in an absent!

Invisible forces exist all around us....Just because they are not manifest to the human eye, doesn't mean they don't exist.

The kind of 'evidence' you are asking for, suggests a thorough-going misunderstanding of the nature of the subject in question.

The psychic world of the human imagination is a key component to grasping the nature & existence of the divine....A door if you will.

You are looking in the wrong realm for your answers to begin with.....A shift toward interiority, is where you'll find the answers to what you are seeking....Turn thy head & one's mind's-eye within.

All that is visible & manifest can only be seen & comprehended via the invisible soul.....That is your starting point....Explain THAT to your daughter.

Return to the center.

 

[skilts]

The psychic world of the human imagination is a key component to grasping the nature & existence of the divine.

A thing which depends on the human imagination for its existence is mere fantasy. That which is, in reality (in its broadest sense), and by definition, NOT.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Invisible forces exist all around us....Just because they are not manifest to the human eye, doesn't mean they don't exist.

The kind of 'evidence' you are asking for, suggests a thorough-going misunderstanding of the nature of the subject in question.

The psychic world of the human imagination is a key component to grasping the nature & existence of the divine....A door if you will.

You are looking in the wrong realm for your answers to begin with.....A shift toward interiority, is where you'll find the answers to what you are seeking....Turn thy head & one's mind's-eye within.

All that is visible & manifest can only be seen & comprehended via the invisible soul.....That is your starting point....Explain THAT to your daughter.

Return to the center.

Avoidance again.
I don't care about your psychic,inner self babble,if I wanted answers to that,I'd have asked or wandered up one those steep mountains in the Himalayas!
Why the Mid East in the Bronze Age?
Why not the Chinese or Romans?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Avoidance again.
I don't care about your psychic,inner self babble,if I wanted answers to that,I'd have asked or wandered up one those steep mountains in the Himalayas!
Why the Mid East in the Bronze Age?
Why not the Chinese or Romans?

I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread amigo....Your mind is closed & it appears you are just here to troll.

 

[Windhover]

I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread amigo....Your mind is closed & it appears you are just here to troll.

A poster aks you a perfectly sensible question and your post above is your "answer"?

The evidence of your post supports the following:_
1. It is your mind that is closed, since you avoid answering reasonable questions.
2. It is therefore you who should question what you are doing on a thread titled "the God Question".
3. That your appearance on this thread is of little value above that of a troll.

I know it is not your record for silliness but it is a good effort.

 

[evo]

I will try to explain but this won't go down well with the atheists:


gnosis teaches that you lose all psychological aggregates which constitutes that which you currently identify yourself with.

that is, CM86, saints fan, business wizard or whatever, owner of xxxx car, degree in whatever, son of mr cm86 & Mrs cm, likes posting on BigFooty, travelling and whatever other impermanent thing you like (or dislike) that you associate with.

gnosis teaches that what is not lost is your "Essence". To say that this is a permanent "self" is incorrect. the Essence is The Consciousness, which forms that part of consciousness trapped within the "I" or ego.

now heres where it gets tricky; the last refarance i made to "I" or "ego", does not constitute the psychological aggregates which die with you (eg. CM, st kilda supporter). This is of vital importance to understand. What your current and past psychological aggregates create through association (ie. thought and attachment) is Karma. Gnosis teaches us the only thing left of a person after death is his/her Karma!

tthe fact is, the concept of "self" or "you" is a series of psychological aggregates, which rise with desire and eventually burn out, only to be rreplaced with new desires. Until such time as you stop the cycle of aggregates, you will continue to be born and reborn, in this physical shell or the next one.

alternatively, we can miss that window of opportunity and continue to be subject to the Wheel (Look up on Wheel on Samsara in buddhism) and devolve. The cycle of birth and rebirth. The cycle of materialistic focus and association through the various kingdoms.

the window we have is rare and difficult to attain, as we find it hard to separate (consciously) from that which we think we are. As the Great Master Jesus said:

"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." - Matthew 7:14


soo you cannot define "self" as something which is impermanent, such as your desires, or how you have established your own unique ID, you cannot therefore state that it is a you, or your "self" experiencing rebirth. You should read the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. It is my favourite Buddhist explanation of being, as it ties in the role of consciousness and karma (which are actually one and the same thing).

None of what i said above can be proven by physics or science. But you have the most sophisticated machine of all to prove it to yourself, your own body. You are a very intelligent poster i gather from your posts, i do not expect you to dismiss the concept without experiment like a genuine scientist would

I'm currently a Hungry Ghost.

 

[evo]

A thing which depends on the human imagination for its existence is mere fantasy. That which is, in reality (in its broadest sense), and by definition, NOT.

I suppose it depends on what one means by imagination. Seems to me all 'things' are products of the imagination.

But don't tell scientists. They need to believe their 'things' are real.

 

[Windhover]

I suppose it depends on what one means by imagination. Seems to me all 'things' are products of the imagination.

You are right that in a sense all things are products of the imagination (consciousness) but that is not the point Skilts was making. He very carefully drew the distinction between those "things" that are dependent on the imagination for existence (i.e. fantasy) from those "things" which are regarded as "real" and can be the subject of scientific observation.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I suppose it depends on what one means by imagination. Seems to me all 'things' are products of the imagination.

But don't tell scientists. They need to believe their 'things' are real.

Just typed and posted this in your imagination did you Winklevoss?

 

[Procrastinator35]

I suppose it depends on what one means by imagination. Seems to me all 'things' are products of the imagination.

But don't tell scientists. They need to believe their 'things' are real.

Well, aeroplanes weren't 'real' until someone's fertile imagination made them become manifest....As with so many human inventions.

 

[evo]

You are right that in a sense all things are products of the imagination (consciousness) but that is not the point Skilts was making. He very carefully drew the distinction between those "things" that are dependent on the imagination for existence (i.e. fantasy) from those "things" which are regarded as "real" and can be the subject of scientific observation.

well if you label them fantasy, they're not 'things' by definition. Agreed.

My view, however, is that all things are like that, even the ones subject to scientific observation. They are products of our consciousness. They don't exist "from their own side" to borrow from Buddhist parlance - they re aren't "things-in-themselves" to borrow from Kant.

It seemed from reading the last couple of pages that most people are willing to accept Total Power's assertion that the "I" is an illusion - that the 'I' is a product of the mind. Then why can't the same be said of things? Consider Procastinator's example of the plane. How do we define the thing we call a plane? It's thingness is totally dependent on how the conscious being observing it defines it; how one separates it from other things. Are the pilots part of the plane? Is the fuel in the plane part of the plane? What about when the fuel is burnt by the plane? Where are its boundaries? If you looked at it with a heat detector for example it's boundaries would be outside the observable plane sans that instrument. What about if we use a sound detector, is noise part of the plane? What about when it starts to rust, or wheel falls off? Is it the same plane? Where does the plane start and finish "objectively"

It's all arbitrary.

 

[Total Power]

well if you label them fantasy, they're not 'things' by definition. Agreed.

My view, however, is that all things are like that, even the ones subject to scientific observation. They are products of our consciousness. They don't exist "from their own side" to borrow from Buddhist parlance - they re aren't "things-in-themselves" to borrow from Kant.

It seemed from reading the last couple of pages that most people are willing to accept Total Power's assertion that the "I" is an illusion - that the 'I' is a product of the mind. Then why can't the same be said of things? Consider Procastinator's example of the plane. How do we define the thing we call a plane? It's thingness is totally dependent on how the conscious being observing it defines it; how one separates it from other things. Are the pilots part of the plane? Is the fuel in the plane part of the plane? What about when the fuel is burnt by the plane? Where are its boundaries? If you looked at it with a heat detector for example it's boundaries would be outside the observable plane sans that instrument. What about if we use a sound detector, is noise part of the plane? What about when it starts to rust, or wheel falls off? Is it the same plane? Where does the plane start and finish "objectively"

It's all arbitrary.

Terrific post.

 

[cannot]

Go where the evidence leads. It doesn't lead to the existence of a deity, hence why it can only ever be an article of faith, until proven otherwise. If you choose to believe, more power to you.

Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaeffer says, “A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

the Dawkins and Crick “directed panspermia” models, for such things like specified complexity and information found in DNA have little evidence

 

[skilts]

well if you label them fantasy, they're not 'things' by definition. Agreed.

My view, however, is that all things are like that, even the ones subject to scientific observation. They are products of our consciousness. They don't exist "from their own side" to borrow from Buddhist parlance - they re aren't "things-in-themselves" to borrow from Kant.

It seemed from reading the last couple of pages that most people are willing to accept Total Power's assertion that the "I" is an illusion - that the 'I' is a product of the mind. Then why can't the same be said of things? Consider Procastinator's example of the plane. How do we define the thing we call a plane? It's thingness is totally dependent on how the conscious being observing it defines it; how one separates it from other things. Are the pilots part of the plane? Is the fuel in the plane part of the plane? What about when the fuel is burnt by the plane? Where are its boundaries? If you looked at it with a heat detector for example it's boundaries would be outside the observable plane sans that instrument. What about if we use a sound detector, is noise part of the plane? What about when it starts to rust, or wheel falls off? Is it the same plane? Where does the plane start and finish "objectively"

It's all arbitrary.

Congrats to due to evo for resisting the temptation to mention that ****ing ubiquitous table as an example of thingness in-itself.

 

[Windhover]

well if you label them fantasy, they're not 'things' by definition. Agreed.

My view, however, is that all things are like that, even the ones subject to scientific observation. They are products of our consciousness. They don't exist "from their own side" to borrow from Buddhist parlance - they re aren't "things-in-themselves" to borrow from Kant.

It seemed from reading the last couple of pages that most people are willing to accept Total Power's assertion that the "I" is an illusion - that the 'I' is a product of the mind. Then why can't the same be said of things? Consider Procastinator's example of the plane. How do we define the thing we call a plane? It's thingness is totally dependent on how the conscious being observing it defines it; how one separates it from other things. Are the pilots part of the plane? Is the fuel in the plane part of the plane? What about when the fuel is burnt by the plane? Where are its boundaries? If you looked at it with a heat detector for example it's boundaries would be outside the observable plane sans that instrument. What about if we use a sound detector, is noise part of the plane? What about when it starts to rust, or wheel falls off? Is it the same plane? Where does the plane start and finish "objectively"

It's all arbitrary.

I do not disagree with the bulk of the post. I do disagree with notion that because fantasy and reality are in a sense both products of the mind there is an equivalence between them. There is not. Scientific method assumes that there is a reality that can be tested and it has the happy benefit (at least in my mind) of working. By scientific method planes fly in the sky. By scientific method UFO sightings can be debunked as fantasies. IMO there is a difference between planes and flying saucers however much both can be described as "products of the mind"or as only existing (in a knowable sense) in the mind.

I agree that what is a "plane" is arbitrary but it is NOT all arbitrary. Let's accept that molecules from the plane will fall off as it flies by and perhaps land on the ground and be consumed by a cow might relevantly be considered part of the plane, particularly if the molecules cause a cancer that kills the cow. But I don't become Jesus Christ just because some of the water molecules that were part of him 2000 years ago (assuming he existed) almost certainly are now in me.

To answer your question, where the plane starts and finishes depends on the purpose you have in asking the question. Until you know why you want to know the answer to the question it is not possible to give an answer. The cancerous cows question may look the same but will be entirely different to the small child's.

 

[evo]

Congrats to due to evo for resisting the temptation to mention that ****ing ubiquitous table as an example of thingness in-itself.

I felt it the only way we could remain Platonic friends.

 

[Windhover]

Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaeffer says, “A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

the Dawkins and Crick “directed panspermia” models, for such things like specified complexity and information found in DNA have little evidence

The report of what some chap called Schaeffer says adds nothing. The quote itself is self-contradictory. Assuming that the Cosmic background radiation and unidentified subsequent scientific findings" point (however clearly) to an ex nihilo creation and assuming (for the sake of the argument) this is consistent with Genesis, how does Schaeffer conclude "A Creator must exist.

If Schaeffer wishes to wear his "quantum chemist" hat (as opposed to his Old Testament loving hat) then as a quantum chemist he would surely want more than things pointing to lead him to a quantum chemist's conclusion that a Creator must exist. If he said these things were some evidence for the existence of an ex nihilo creator this would be wrong, but at least it would be consistent.

Your comment about panspermia is curiously acontextual. Panspermia is a hypothesis so by definition it has little supporting evidence. If it had much supporting evidence it would be a theory, which it isn't.

 

[evo]

Scientific method assumes that there is a reality that can be tested and it has the happy benefit (at least in my mind) of working. [/qoute]Sure. But scientific method makes an assumption that the reality they are testing is 'out there' rather than a model that they have created in their collective minds. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as you contend it does work. But to my way of thinking it is still a model never the less.

I agree that what is a "plane" is arbitrary but it is NOT all arbitrary. Let's accept that molecules from the plane will fall off as it flies by and perhaps land on the ground and be consumed by a cow might relevantly be considered part of the plane, particularly if the molecules cause a cancer that kills the cow.

Well the concept that the world is made of molecules is somewhat supportive of what I'm contending. It is our mind that decides how those molecules conceptually should be arranged to create thingness. I mean when calling something such a plane a thing we still have to decide which molecules are part of said plane and which are not. At bottom molecules are just another idea. A way of carving the world up into the smallest possible detectable unit ( well one of the smallest.

But I don't become Jesus Christ just because some of the water molecules that were part of him 2000 years ago (assuming he existed) almost certainly are now in me.

Well if you were to accept my position on this, and you happened to believe you are Jesus Christ - then to you at least - you are! Jesus Christ, like all products of the mind, is not a thing-itself either.

To answer your question, where the plane starts and finishes depends on the purpose you have in asking the question.

Indeed!

 

[Judd2Sewell]

What is actually tiresome, is your cartoon caricature portrayal of all religion as the purview of simpletons & the naive. Including your continued re-hashing of the same old ignorant BS, dressed up as enlightened opinion.

I know I speak on behalf of all the believers in this thread, when I tell you that you have nothing new to offer & your 'stuff' is getting very old & stale.

We've all heard it a million times before.

And yet the same arguments are yet to ever be properly addressed, which I imagine is why you would continuously hear them. Maybe if you and your fellow believers could muster up some sort of convincing argument, provide evidence, or even refute them in some remotely believable way you won't have to hear them anymore.

I imagine it would get tiresome to have to continue to try to convince yourself of your beliefs over and over again.

Anyhow, please enlighten us all what true religion is. Educate me. Educate us all, oh wise one.