|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 19:03:18 GMT
You are of course correct, random chance is a terrible word, natural processes I suppose in all the instances you are talking about, and I would say that if an intelligence fits the creation of the universe then technically all those natural processes are the end result of intelligence, but I see the point you are making and i agree. I think that an intelligence fitting is simply personal preference, my metaphysical model is influenced by the tree of life diagram in jewish philosophy and that is based on emotive forces (strength, love etc), in keeping with that interpreting the universe in an emotional/mental light fits the model. Again I need to stress this is not a truth claim, but an interpretive choice. Awesome, so great dialog here and I think we've gotten to a really interesting point.
I have two subtley different questions about personal preference here. Why is it a factor at all? And why is intelligence your preference, or more importantly, why isn't your preference for an accurate view of reality, whether an intelligence is involved or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 19:28:49 GMT
You are of course correct, random chance is a terrible word, natural processes I suppose in all the instances you are talking about, and I would say that if an intelligence fits the creation of the universe then technically all those natural processes are the end result of intelligence, but I see the point you are making and i agree. I think that an intelligence fitting is simply personal preference, my metaphysical model is influenced by the tree of life diagram in jewish philosophy and that is based on emotive forces (strength, love etc), in keeping with that interpreting the universe in an emotional/mental light fits the model. Again I need to stress this is not a truth claim, but an interpretive choice. Awesome, so great dialog here and I think we've gotten to a really interesting point.
I have two subtley different questions about personal preference here. Why is it a factor at all? And why is intelligence your preference, or more importantly, why isn't your preference for an accurate view of reality, whether an intelligence is involved or not?
Why is intelligence a factor??? Not really sure I understand the question, but I guess you are asking me why do I care??? I think that (given we do not know) at the end of the day we all make a choice as to whether we think an intelligence is involved or not, I choose to think there is. There is no other reason than personal interpretation and comfort of choice. My preference is for an accurate view of reality (in as much as it can be), and as I have said previously I defer to science and understanding first, like I say it isnot even really a truth claim it is a matter of interpretation. To put it another way, even if I knew for a fact that an intelligence was not involved, my model of the universe would still have to change before I abandoned interpreting the universe as if it was sourced from an intelligence. Another way of looking at it is that I don't really care what the final truth is, my model of the universe interprets the source as intelligent, my model would have to change first. This is why I am very adamant that I am not making a truth claim, I am instead holding a model of interpretation in my head that allows me to come to grips with the reality I face. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 19:34:04 GMT
Awesome, so great dialog here and I think we've gotten to a really interesting point.
I have two subtley different questions about personal preference here. Why is it a factor at all? And why is intelligence your preference, or more importantly, why isn't your preference for an accurate view of reality, whether an intelligence is involved or not?
Why is intelligence a factor??? Not really sure I understand the question, but I guess you are asking me why do I care??? I think that (given we do not know) at the end of the day we all make a choice as to whether we think an intelligence is involved or not, I choose to think there is. There is no other reason than personal interpretation and comfort of choice. My preference is for an accurate view of reality (in as much as it can be), and as I have said previously I defer to science and understanding first, like I say it isnot even really a truth claim it is a matter of interpretation. To put it another way, even if I knew for a fact that an intelligence was not involved, my model of the universe would still have to change before I abandoned interpreting the universe as if it was sourced from an intelligence. Another way of looking at it is that I don't really care what the final truth is, my model of the universe interprets the source as intelligent, my model would have to change first. This is why I am very adamant that I am not making a truth claim, I am instead holding a model of interpretation in my head that allows me to come to grips with the reality I face. No I'm asking why personal preference is a factor.
Regarding the second response though, so if you knew 100% that an intelligence wasn't involved you would still have a model that interprets an intelligence as being involved. Ok. I'm just a little confused as I'm sure what value that has then. If you knew an intelligence wasn't involved, why would you have a model that one was? I'm having trouble conceiving why. Wouldn't you just change your model?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 19:47:39 GMT
Why is intelligence a factor??? Not really sure I understand the question, but I guess you are asking me why do I care??? I think that (given we do not know) at the end of the day we all make a choice as to whether we think an intelligence is involved or not, I choose to think there is. There is no other reason than personal interpretation and comfort of choice. My preference is for an accurate view of reality (in as much as it can be), and as I have said previously I defer to science and understanding first, like I say it isnot even really a truth claim it is a matter of interpretation. To put it another way, even if I knew for a fact that an intelligence was not involved, my model of the universe would still have to change before I abandoned interpreting the universe as if it was sourced from an intelligence. Another way of looking at it is that I don't really care what the final truth is, my model of the universe interprets the source as intelligent, my model would have to change first. This is why I am very adamant that I am not making a truth claim, I am instead holding a model of interpretation in my head that allows me to come to grips with the reality I face. No I'm asking why personal preference is a factor.
Regarding the second response though, so if you knew 100% that an intelligence wasn't involved you would still have a model that interprets an intelligence as being involved. Ok. I'm just a little confused as I'm sure what value that has then. If you knew an intelligence wasn't involved, why would you have a model that one was? I'm having trouble conceiving why. Wouldn't you just change your model?
The short answer is that I would. But the point I was making was that if nothing about my model changed then my end interpretation would not change, even if it was proven to be wrong. To be fair if it was proven to be wrong my model would almost certainly change, but the point I am making is that the interpretation of intelligence is an interpretation thing in terms of how I interact with the universe, not necessarily a model to represent truth. Ahh. Personal preference is a factor because it is a subjective decision, it is about how I interpret the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 19:57:24 GMT
No I'm asking why personal preference is a factor.
Regarding the second response though, so if you knew 100% that an intelligence wasn't involved you would still have a model that interprets an intelligence as being involved. Ok. I'm just a little confused as I'm sure what value that has then. If you knew an intelligence wasn't involved, why would you have a model that one was? I'm having trouble conceiving why. Wouldn't you just change your model?
The short answer is that I would. But the point I was making was that if nothing about my model changed then my end interpretation would not change, even if it was proven to be wrong. To be fair if it was proven to be wrong my model would almost certainly change, but the point I am making is that the interpretation of intelligence is an interpretation thing in terms of how I interact with the universe, not necessarily a model to represent truth. Ahh. Personal preference is a factor because it is a subjective decision, it is about how I interpret the universe. But it's not subjective. There is a certain amount of matter in the universe. There is a certain amount of energy. The universe is formed a certain way. Wormholes either exist or they don't. Whether we know those these things or not is a different story, but they are objective factors, not subjective.
Regarding your model, I understand that you're talking about your interpretation of the various elements that go into that. But what I'm asking is why your interpretation is of intelligence being a factor where there are no elements of the equation that involve intelligence being a factor. In short, why does your model conclude there is intelligence?
For example, I don't hold any views about reality and say I'm going to hold them until are they are proven wrong, unless those views are already supported by demonstrable evidence. So I don't know why you're holding to the view of intelligence until it's proven wrong. Shouldn't you wait until it's proven right to include that in your model?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 21, 2017 23:26:25 GMT
It's about self-awareness. I can only speak from my own truth, or authentic nature of being within that awareness. My truth may not be your truth, and the proof is only in the projected illusion of the life I lead on this plane. I can't support or change anyone else's beliefs or attitudes, as that is their journey. All I can do is contribute and perhaps even inspire within my own being and that goes for every soul on this planet. In other words, the proof is in all our lives within our individual experience and each have to do the work ourselves to realize that what we see as reality, is really all just part of our dream. Note that I wasn't asking you for proof of anything, by the way. Proof is a different sort of idea. But okay, it sounds kind of like you're saying that how we know that something is an illusion, why we'd believe that, is because different people experience different things, they disagree with each other, etc.--is that basically it? Proof, support, same thing really. We are experiencing different realties within the same realm.
What needs to be acknowledged, is that clarity of self-awareness about our being and purpose here, can only prevail and be fully realized, when duality is dissolved within the concept\notion of what God represents. Only then can we transcend\transform. It is ALL God. All the rest is just process and content of the thinking and controlling monkey mind which thrives and supports the ego. This is not a bad thing, but it need to be reigned in, if it is to evolve and become mindful and present.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 23:32:51 GMT
The short answer is that I would. But the point I was making was that if nothing about my model changed then my end interpretation would not change, even if it was proven to be wrong. To be fair if it was proven to be wrong my model would almost certainly change, but the point I am making is that the interpretation of intelligence is an interpretation thing in terms of how I interact with the universe, not necessarily a model to represent truth. Ahh. Personal preference is a factor because it is a subjective decision, it is about how I interpret the universe. But it's not subjective. There is a certain amount of matter in the universe. There is a certain amount of energy. The universe is formed a certain way. Wormholes either exist or they don't. Whether we know those these things or not is a different story, but they are objective factors, not subjective.
Regarding your model, I understand that you're talking about your interpretation of the various elements that go into that. But what I'm asking is why your interpretation is of intelligence being a factor where there are no elements of the equation that involve intelligence being a factor. In short, why does your model conclude there is intelligence?
For example, I don't hold any views about reality and say I'm going to hold them until are they are proven wrong, unless those views are already supported by demonstrable evidence. So I don't know why you're holding to the view of intelligence until it's proven wrong. Shouldn't you wait until it's proven right to include that in your model?
Yes the end truth is not subjective, there is an overall truth that is objective, an interpretive model that is to say a model that a person uses to interpret the universe is subjective though. A model would not be complete unless a determination on source was included, as I say it is merely interpretive so the actual truth does not matter to the model and is unknown at this point anyway. So yes I suppose it is speculation, and to be fair I am following the Jewish practice of thinking of that which is beyond the point of creation (either I am or the sudden expansion of the big bang, or maybe the gutting of the great cow of the universe, whatever you hold to be true) as unknown and unknowable. So given that I hold that the source is unknown (and I am pretty certain that it is unknowable), the determination of what started it can fall into three categories: I don't assume (your stance I think) I interpret it as natural I interpret it as intelligent I don't think there is any harm in landing on whatever suits your model as long as you accept you could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 21, 2017 23:56:48 GMT
So given that I hold that the source is unknown (and I am pretty certain that it is unknowable), the determination of what started it can fall into three categories: I don't assume (your stance I think) I interpret it as natural I interpret it as intelligent I don't think there is any harm in landing on whatever suits your model as long as you accept you could be wrong. I think we are getting to some really truly great discussion here and I appreciate it very much. Two things, a quick clarification on my stance and then a comment on harm.
Yes, I am in the don't assume category for sure. We could be in the matrix for all I know, but I wouldn't adapt a model of reality for that unless there's some sort of sufficient data for doing so. If that makes sense.
Now, I would strongly propose that adapting a model of reality that is not consistent with reality, can most definitely cause harm. People who think this intelligence talks to them and guides them. I know most religious people are good, but we are promoting tolerance of an institution where people actually think they can hold telepathic conversations with the creator of the universe. If you can step back and think about that for a second, I honestly don't know how that is any different from being certifiably insane, and I don't mean that to be offensive. And we know for sure that people act on these "commands" if you will, in very violent ways. Do all religious people act this way? Of course not, but continuing to act like we can't speak out against the harm of religious delusion is merely ensuring that these types of delusional actions will continue.
And there are other harms. Consider how many people don't accept evolution and the general harm to education. It is a direct result of adherence to religious beliefs that is the cause of taking hundreds of years for humanity as a whole to accept that we weren't the center of the solar system, or that burning witches was a good idea, or that gays are somehow evil, and many of these types of beliefs are very prevalent today. Religion might very much have been a benefit to society in ancient times, but there's no other way to say it but that it holds us back in modern times. It is a barbaric belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 22, 2017 1:05:37 GMT
So given that I hold that the source is unknown (and I am pretty certain that it is unknowable), the determination of what started it can fall into three categories: I don't assume (your stance I think) I interpret it as natural I interpret it as intelligent I don't think there is any harm in landing on whatever suits your model as long as you accept you could be wrong. I think we are getting to some really truly great discussion here and I appreciate it very much. Two things, a quick clarification on my stance and then a comment on harm.
Yes, I am in the don't assume category for sure. We could be in the matrix for all I know, but I wouldn't adapt a model of reality for that unless there's some sort of sufficient data for doing so. If that makes sense.
Now, I would strongly propose that adapting a model of reality that is not consistent with reality, can most definitely cause harm. People who think this intelligence talks to them and guides them. I know most religious people are good, but we are promoting tolerance of an institution where people actually think they can hold telepathic conversations with the creator of the universe. If you can step back and think about that for a second, I honestly don't know how that is any different from being certifiably insane, and I don't mean that to be offensive. And we know for sure that people act on these "commands" if you will, in very violent ways. Do all religious people act this way? Of course not, but continuing to act like we can't speak out against the harm of religious delusion is merely ensuring that these types of delusional actions will continue.
And there are other harms. Consider how many people don't accept evolution and the general harm to education. It is a direct result of adherence to religious beliefs that is the cause of taking hundreds of years for humanity as a whole to accept that we weren't the center of the solar system, or that burning witches was a good idea, or that gays are somehow evil, and many of these types of beliefs are very prevalent today. Religion might very much have been a benefit to society in ancient times, but there's no other way to say it but that it holds us back in modern times. It is a barbaric belief.
Yeah actually really good point, i must clear up here I mean in terms of personal belief and how it affects you personally, I am not in favour of dictation to others of how to think, or what to believe, I accept that I may be an anomaly in that respect, but I am happy to be so. I think that there is 100% a set of harms that have been (and in some cases continue to be) inflicted on society by organised religion, and I am opposed to that. You must understand that for most of my life I was not involved in organised religion in any way and when I was I was hanging out with the most left leaning of the left church, so I agree with you, but also I see that the current batch of priests is more and more becoming liberal and compassionate. Having said that the church is an old school institution and so is liable to be the last thing to fully catch up with modern morality and thinking. I don't agree that religion holds us back in modern times, but I do understand where you are coming from and (I assume you are American) I guess that it is pretty blatant where you live. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 22, 2017 1:33:29 GMT
Yeah actually really good point, i must clear up here I mean in terms of personal belief and how it affects you personally, I am not in favour of dictation to others of how to think, or what to believe, I accept that I may be an anomaly in that respect, but I am happy to be so. I think that there is 100% a set of harms that have been (and in some cases continue to be) inflicted on society by organised religion, and I am opposed to that. You must understand that for most of my life I was not involved in organised religion in any way and when I was I was hanging out with the most left leaning of the left church, so I agree with you, but also I see that the current batch of priests is more and more becoming liberal and compassionate. Having said that the church is an old school institution and so is liable to be the last thing to fully catch up with modern morality and thinking. I don't agree that religion holds us back in modern times, but I do understand where you are coming from and (I assume you are American) I guess that it is pretty blatant where you live. I am American yes, and quickly stated, religion does hold us back because it has always been the last to accept knowledge that contradicts it's beliefs, and it fights vigorously against that new knowledge if there is a contradiction.
And it will always be a source of harm, not because it's people are bad, but because it is a system of delusion. It promotes a warped view of reality. People act on their beliefs and if those beliefs don't reflect reality, then their actions are sooner or later going to come into conflict with reality. This is why you have religious intolerance of homosexuality even though it's 100% normal in all mammalian species. They are living in their delusional biblical world and not the real world. The same thing with terrorism, or thinking prayer works.
As an example I particularly have a problem with phrases like "they're in a better place" when somebody dies. That's disgusting. I know people say it casually, but you are literally saying that death is preferable, and while I get that most people say it very casually and mean it as a condolence, if we teach things like this, that an afterlife exists and it is an ultimate goal, then by this warped view of reality it would be logical to make decisions that people are better off dead.
And that's why we've seen suicide cults like Jim Jones, Hale Bop, and the Branch Davidians. There are plenty of others. That's why we see suicide bombers who think they are going to heaven if they kill people.
You have to take a stand, that instead of feeling comfortable with your views regardless of evidence that you are going to value and promote reality instead. If we simply tolerate delusional points of view unchallenged, at best it's an insult to that persons intelligence (as if they are incapable of accepting reality), and at worst it is sitting back and saying we are ok with people committing irrational actions to each other, and themselves, based on completely delusional views of reality. And I don't know why we continue to accept that. I have more respect for your intellect, than to think you can't accept reality for what it really is, and I feel the same about everybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 22, 2017 2:00:24 GMT
Yeah actually really good point, i must clear up here I mean in terms of personal belief and how it affects you personally, I am not in favour of dictation to others of how to think, or what to believe, I accept that I may be an anomaly in that respect, but I am happy to be so. I think that there is 100% a set of harms that have been (and in some cases continue to be) inflicted on society by organised religion, and I am opposed to that. You must understand that for most of my life I was not involved in organised religion in any way and when I was I was hanging out with the most left leaning of the left church, so I agree with you, but also I see that the current batch of priests is more and more becoming liberal and compassionate. Having said that the church is an old school institution and so is liable to be the last thing to fully catch up with modern morality and thinking. I don't agree that religion holds us back in modern times, but I do understand where you are coming from and (I assume you are American) I guess that it is pretty blatant where you live. I am American yes, and quickly stated, religion does hold us back because it has always been the last to accept knowledge that contradicts it's beliefs, and it fights vigorously against that new knowledge if there is a contradiction.
And it will always be a source of harm, not because it's people are bad, but because it is a system of delusion. It promotes a warped view of reality. People act on their beliefs and if those beliefs don't reflect reality, then their actions are sooner or later going to come into conflict with reality. This is why you have religious intolerance of homosexuality even though it's 100% normal in all mammalian species. They are living in their delusional biblical world and not the real world. The same thing with terrorism, or thinking prayer works.
As an example I particularly have a problem with phrases like "they're in a better place" when somebody dies. That's disgusting. I know people say it casually, but you are literally saying that death is preferable, and while I get that most people say it very casually and mean it as a condolence, if we teach things like this, that an afterlife exists and it is an ultimate goal, then by this warped view of reality it would be logical to make decisions that people are better off dead.
And that's why we've seen suicide cults like Jim Jones, Hale Bop, and the Branch Davidians. There are plenty of others. That's why we see suicide bombers who think they are going to heaven if they kill people.
You have to take a stand, that instead of feeling comfortable with your views regardless of evidence that you are going to value and promote reality instead. If we simply tolerate delusional points of view unchallenged, at best it's an insult to that persons intelligence (as if they are incapable of accepting reality), and at worst it is sitting back and saying we are ok with people committing irrational actions to each other, and themselves, based on completely delusional views of reality. And I don't know why we continue to accept that. I have more respect for your intellect, than to think you can't accept reality for what it really is, and I feel the same about everybody else.
I think you and I are in 100% agreement, with the caveat that I see the good that churches do as well. Let me be clear, I do adjust my model continually based on new knowledge that comes to me, so in that way I am accepting reality for what it is. The exception to that is the example I gave where if it came to me that definately there was no intelligence at the source but for some strange reason my model was not changed then I would still use intelligence as the source of my model because I accept it is an interpretation not a truth claim. I would just have to accept that in reality there was no intelligence but my model asks me to behave as if there is. In my defence this is an extremely unlikely scenario as such new knowledge would by it's nature force my model to change. As an aside, from a foreigners perspective, America is mad when it comes to religion, and I accept that I may have been in a skewed sample group, but the religious people I know are not the sort to dismiss science, nor to dictate religious dogma as if it was truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 4:14:03 GMT
I've never found the idea convincing, and most of the arguments I hear honestly don't really seem to go anywhere, so I'd like to ask why anybody accepts it as true? Well not that I accept it as true but there are still a lot of questions about the universe. we don't know how and where we came from or even where the universe came from. it's also hard to believe that nothing came before the big bang and that it just randomly exploded and now we're here… that's almost as hard to believe and to just accept that than it is to believe in God IMO. There really no definition of God, so it could really mean anything. I am almost positive that the big bang was already discussed but i answered before reading through anyway -_- |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2017 10:38:02 GMT
 Notice I said that before the president's address to the nation last night. Apparently much later. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 10:54:31 GMT
Note that I wasn't asking you for proof of anything, by the way. Proof is a different sort of idea. But okay, it sounds kind of like you're saying that how we know that something is an illusion, why we'd believe that, is because different people experience different things, they disagree with each other, etc.--is that basically it? Proof, support, same thing really. We are experiencing different realties within the same realm.
What needs to be acknowledged, is that clarity of self-awareness about our being and purpose here, can only prevail and be fully realized, when duality is dissolved within the concept\notion of what God represents. Only then can we transcend\transform. It is ALL God. All the rest is just process and content of the thinking and controlling monkey mind which thrives and supports the ego. This is not a bad thing, but it need to be reigned in, if it is to evolve and become mindful and present.
Proof implies that something can't be wrong. If we've proved that P, then it's not possible that not-P. Otherwise we haven't proved that P. Proof also has a normative implication. One's support for something is simply the reasons that one believes what one does. And it doesn't necessarily have a normative implication, because the reasons that one believes what one does can be very personal. Re different people experiencing different things, that's simply because we don't have identical perspectives. It doesn't imply that anything is illusory. We don't occupy the same space, for example, so you perceive things from one perspective, and I perceive them from another. That's not the only thing that's going on there, but it's one example. So if we both walk into my kitchen, we should both see the refrigerator. We won't see it exactly the same, because we don't have identical perspectives--we're seeing it from different angles, we might be seeing different sides, etc., and we don't have identical perceptual faculties If you don't see it at all, then there's reason to wonder what's going on with your perceptual faculties, or what might be going in your brain aside from your perceptual faculties, once you receive that external information. "Purposes" are simply things we invent for ourselves as individuals, when we do (not everyone invents a purpose for him/herself). |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 22, 2017 11:32:58 GMT
Proof, support, same thing really. We are experiencing different realties within the same realm.
What needs to be acknowledged, is that clarity of self-awareness about our being and purpose here, can only prevail and be fully realized, when duality is dissolved within the concept\notion of what God represents. Only then can we transcend\transform. It is ALL God. All the rest is just process and content of the thinking and controlling monkey mind which thrives and supports the ego. This is not a bad thing, but it need to be reigned in, if it is to evolve and become mindful and present.
Proof implies that something can't be wrong. If we've proved that P, then it's not possible that not-P. Otherwise we haven't proved that P. Proof also has a normative implication. One's support for something is simply the reasons that one believes what one does. And it doesn't necessarily have a normative implication, because the reasons that one believes what one does can be very personal. Re different people experiencing different things, that's simply because we don't have identical perspectives. It doesn't imply that anything is illusory. We don't occupy the same space, for example, so you perceive things from one perspective, and I perceive them from another. That's not the only thing that's going on there, but it's one example. So if we both walk into my kitchen, we should both see the refrigerator. We won't see it exactly the same, because we don't have identical perspectives--we're seeing it from different angles, we might be seeing different sides, etc., and we don't have identical perceptual faculties If you don't see it at all, then there's reason to wonder what's going on with your perceptual faculties, or what might be going in your brain aside from your perceptual faculties, once you receive that external information. "Purposes" are simply things we invent for ourselves as individuals, when we do (not everyone invents a purpose for him/herself). We are discussing the existence of God, which is a subjective belief. Proof or Support is not something that can or will justify these various beliefs. What can be supported, is within your own life and the existence of your conscious awareness, regardless of what you believe about it being snuffed out when your physical dies, or if it is infinite and goes on forever. I think you need to let the refrigerator analogy go, you are intellectualizing it to create meaning that doesn't even exist. Even if I am in your presence and we are occupying the same space, it is still all projected illusion. That is what we would have created for ourselves in that current moment. Even this online discussion is all projected illusion. The external information is manifested within the internal. External\Internal, it is all one and the same anyway. Purpose is how we contribute and it is also our driving force. We all have a purpose to live and survive, and we are contributing to our purpose with every action we do. You cannot escape it and it is an invention of our projected illusionary mindsets. The key is, how inventive are we really being? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 11:50:21 GMT
Proof implies that something can't be wrong. If we've proved that P, then it's not possible that not-P. Otherwise we haven't proved that P. Proof also has a normative implication. One's support for something is simply the reasons that one believes what one does. And it doesn't necessarily have a normative implication, because the reasons that one believes what one does can be very personal. Re different people experiencing different things, that's simply because we don't have identical perspectives. It doesn't imply that anything is illusory. We don't occupy the same space, for example, so you perceive things from one perspective, and I perceive them from another. That's not the only thing that's going on there, but it's one example. So if we both walk into my kitchen, we should both see the refrigerator. We won't see it exactly the same, because we don't have identical perspectives--we're seeing it from different angles, we might be seeing different sides, etc., and we don't have identical perceptual faculties If you don't see it at all, then there's reason to wonder what's going on with your perceptual faculties, or what might be going in your brain aside from your perceptual faculties, once you receive that external information. "Purposes" are simply things we invent for ourselves as individuals, when we do (not everyone invents a purpose for him/herself). We are discussing the existence of God, which is a subjective belief. Proof or Support is not something that can or will justify these various beliefs. What can be supported, is within your own life and the existence of your conscious awareness, regardless of what you believe about it being snuffed out when your physical dies, or if it is infinite and goes on forever. I think you need to let the refrigerator analogy go, you are intellectualizing it to create meaning that doesn't even exist. Even if I am in your presence and we are occupying the same space, it is still all projected illusion. That is what we would have created for ourselves in that current moment. Even this online discussion is all projected illusion. The external information is manifested within the internal. External\Internal, it is all one and the same anyway. Purpose is how we contribute and it is also our driving force. We all have a purpose to live and survive, and we are contributing to our purpose with every action we do. You cannot escape it and it is an invention of our projected illusionary mindsets. The key is, how inventive are we really being? The post you're quoting from me above doesn't have anything to do with belief in God particularly. We'd moved on to more general ideas. And I was interested in your "illusion" comments, because I want to teach you something about that sort of view. Re this comment: * All beliefs are subjective. That's because "subjective" refers to something being a mental phenomenon, and belief is a mental phenomenon. * Most people have reasons for believing something like "There is a God." Not everyone does have a reason, but I thinkthat most do, even if it's "It just feels right to me" or something like that. In that case, that's their support for their belief, it's what they consider a good (enough) reason to believe it. * No empirical claim is provable. Empirical claims are only falsifiable at best (but often, in practice, they're not falsifiable, either, for reasons more or less described by the Duhem-Quine thesis). * If you assign meaning to something, then meaning exists. Meaning is simply a mental phenomenon. As long as that mental phenomenon obtains, then meaning exists. * What does "intellectualizing" something refer to in your usage? * What I want to get to is your reasons for believing this: "Even if I am in your presence and we are occupying the same space, it is still all projected illusion." But it doesn't seem like you'll allow yourself to be led to giving your reasons for believing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2017 12:48:38 GMT
... you should based beliefs on demonstrated, non-subjective, criteria. ... water is made of H2O is a valid statement, and god exists is not. What a clear picture of your fundamental mistake those few words present. Consider this question, "Does calculus exist?" Although it certainly exists it is not a "concrete" object. A dog can see a brick of concrete and understand it. He might jump over it if it is in his way or run away if it appears it might fall on him. A dog can see his food dish and understand it. He might wait near it till you put some food in it or otherwise draw your attention to the fact it is empty. A dog cannot see calculus. He only sees paper with markings on it. He has no idea what he should do in regard to the markings on the paper or what value or threat they might have. If dogs could talk they would say that calculus does not exist. Perhaps surprisingly, some humans think calculus does not have any value. Calculus is an abstract thing. It certainly exists but only in the abstract. The god of most modern religions is also an abstract thing. It certainly exists, but you are no more aware of it than a dog is of calculus. You keep claiming we have given you no proof, and it does appear we are no more likely to prove to you a god exists than prove to a dog calculus exists. The intelligent designer is an issue in science quite different from the god in religion. Your conflation of the two concepts is extremely distracting. It drives most discussion off any point. Most people have no interest at all in "proving" the god of any religion, at least not the ones well trained in the religion. Notice gadreel does not care to prove anything. Notice the Bible says, "an evil and adulterous generation demands a sign." The intelligent designer is quite different because it is significantly more a matter of concrete reality, tangible things. Although we can't see it, we can see what it does (much more obviously than the god in religion). We cannot see the wind but we can see what it does. The wind then is more immediately a "concrete" thing (and air is only compressible so far) than calculus. The intelligent designer is more immediately a concrete thing and that sort of issue in science. You have an obvious anxiety about abstract truths. You appear to believe that knowing water is wet (and such obvious things) is the only truth worth examining. Others on this board have the same anxiety. Let's not count Vegas in that, I doubt he's had much anxiety about anything. There is however that fear out there that we must keep things on a pedestrian level lest things get totally out of control. That is a mistake and the real problem though. You're denying us the benefits of religion like calculus because you don't understand religion. In the case of the intelligent designer you're denying us the benefits of science because you don't understand that either. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2017 18:36:18 GMT
Now, I would strongly propose that adapting a model of reality that is not consistent with reality, can most definitely cause harm. People who think this intelligence talks to them and guides them. I know most religious people are good, but we are promoting tolerance of an institution where people actually think they can hold telepathic conversations with the creator of the universe. If you can step back and think about that for a second, I honestly don't know how that is any different from being certifiably insane, and I don't mean that to be offensive. And we know for sure that people act on these "commands" if you will, in very violent ways. Do all religious people act this way? Of course not, but continuing to act like we can't speak out against the harm of religious delusion is merely ensuring that these types of delusional actions will continue. And there are other harms. Consider how many people don't accept evolution and the general harm to education. It is a direct result of adherence to religious beliefs that is the cause of taking hundreds of years for humanity as a whole to accept that we weren't the center of the solar system, or that burning witches was a good idea, or that gays are somehow evil, and many of these types of beliefs are very prevalent today. Religion might very much have been a benefit to society in ancient times, but there's no other way to say it but that it holds us back in modern times. It is a barbaric belief. In my opinion the problem is less that some people are religious; it's that some people claim to have found objective truth, or absolute truth. Fundamentalists, so to speak. They don't have to be religious fundamentalists. Stalinists were very intolerant of homosexuals. Maoists were not exactly big on human rights either, to put it mildly. But they all claimed to have found the truth. Absolute truth is not accessible to humans. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 22, 2017 21:08:29 GMT
Truly, the best evidence of God is the evidence of the Devil. The Devil has too much control in this existence, and overplays his hand too much for a person with an education over 2 years of college and an IQ over 24.99 to not notice.
As a meter reader (your spirit, or soul) strapped to one body and mind, incapable of movement outside, a lost speck in the Universe, not even capable of motivation into over 99.99999999...% of the Universe, a soul would be worse than retarded to not realize he or she was imprisoned.
If you woke up behind bars of solid steel, seeing the outside, stuck inside a tiny cell of impenetrable dense material, you would not think it was an accident, that it was coincidence, unless you were dumber than a retard.
It's the enemy overplaying his hand, filling our minds with doubts and confusion, that proves his existence.
Now, since his existence is proven, and we know he could do worse, and would do worse with total power, we know there is another force, a force of good, but it's so far back in the background, hidden behind so many demons, that it's hard to find.
Remember when Jesus spoke of the "holy Ghost" that would remain when he left? Remember how he used his power to heal, never to harm?
And what was the first thing Peter did with the power of the Holy Ghost?
Called upon a spirit of death for two people for not giving enough. Well, they doubted the spirit they were giving to, and doubted Peter, and Peter proved them correct to doubt. Not that Peter was evil. But if he was the best Jesus could find, then we're in a world of hurt, with the Holy Ghost hidden behind 2000 years worth of demonic activity.
It's the overplaying of the enemy's hand, way beyond coincidence, that proves the supernatural. It's the fact that pretty much no one ever came back from the dead to this existence that highly indicates (if not proves) that this existence is unworthy to return to, that there is better. It is the fact that we do have choices, despite the hopes of deluded morons who want to believe we don't, that shows there is more than the Devil.
Yep, there is a good God, but don't look for him to be active in this existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 24, 2017 9:58:24 GMT
The post you're quoting from me above doesn't have anything to do with belief in God particularly. We'd moved on to more general ideas. And I was interested in your "illusion" comments, because I want to teach you something about that sort of view. Re this comment: * All beliefs are subjective. That's because "subjective" refers to something being a mental phenomenon, and belief is a mental phenomenon. * Most people have reasons for believing something like "There is a God." Not everyone does have a reason, but I thinkthat most do, even if it's "It just feels right to me" or something like that. In that case, that's their support for their belief, it's what they consider a good (enough) reason to believe it. * No empirical claim is provable. Empirical claims are only falsifiable at best (but often, in practice, they're not falsifiable, either, for reasons more or less described by the Duhem-Quine thesis). * If you assign meaning to something, then meaning exists. Meaning is simply a mental phenomenon. As long as that mental phenomenon obtains, then meaning exists. * What does "intellectualizing" something refer to in your usage? * What I want to get to is your reasons for believing this: "Even if I am in your presence and we are occupying the same space, it is still all projected illusion." But it doesn't seem like you'll allow yourself to be led to giving your reasons for believing it. Thanks for attempting to teach me, but I haven't really asked you too. 
* Belief is of course subjective and representative of the ego mind, mental phenomena or not. They also create confusion and conflict.
* The reason is still an attempt to find meaning in something that is meaningless.
* What is proof, but a projected illusion of what is believed to be true. It might well be a consequence of an action, but if something is perceived as empirical, it doesn't mean that it isn't valid or authentic.
* If you assign meaning to something, then perhaps one could be limiting themselves. The meaning is not going to be the same for everyone and where does this meaning exist? It is just a thought\belief of the ego dominated mind. Show me where these meanings are?
* Intellectualizing, is using learned knowledge in an attempt to make a logical point about something, when in this case regarding the existence of God, it can't possibly be proven due to differing and conflicting beliefs that lacks monistic understanding. Intellectualizing, is an attempt to convince others with what one knows by also wanting to impress with the knowledge they have amassed, when perhaps they are misguided, being pretentious and perhaps even pompous. Is the knowledge getting to the core heart of it?
* EVERYTHING is a projected illusion of your own God space. If you don't want to believe it, I can't convince you, you have to feel it and be it for yourself. How on earth can you get to my reasoning for the truth, when you don't buy into it? You are the God force.
|
|
