If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
it's not enough to leave it at "everyone's logic is different". a single person's logic is basically the product of ideas competing in his own mind to yield an idea that holds up to whatever criticisms he can manage to come up with. the more criticisms of an idea that he can come up with without finding an idea false or meaningless, you can say, the better his logic will be.
so when you have a lot of people involved in a debate, it's basically a big human brain. ideas compete, and the idea that can hold up to the most criticism without being falsified, or discovered to be meaningless, is (theoretically) eventually adopted by the rest of the population. this obviously isn't how it works immedaitely, but over time, and with enough people questioning a certain idea, it more or less does. for instance, almost no one today believes that the earth is flat. people in america generally believe that whites are not superior to blacks. most people in the western world believe that evolution took place. it's a slow process and there's a science to it, memetics i think it's called.
the end result is that knowledge is disseminated throughout a population, much like the brain comes to a conclusion, which thereby better equips the population to deal with a certain issue. this is the good that can come out of debate. hell, it might even be the reason that the need to argue seems to be ingrained in humans.
anyway, i guess my point is, everyone's logic is different, but (almost) everyone's logic can change, and that's why a healthy debate of these things is necessary. meaning that, when someone puts forward an idea which does not hold up to a particular criticism you can think of, you ought to tell them, and explain why. unless you're too tired, or hung over.
Either way, our logic isn't the same.. how we deduct can not be imperical, but rather intrinsic on how we think, in which, you must realize that we are all different. Therefore, there is no right way to discuss a godly figure.. especially when we can't agree to a definition of what is a god... And since this is the case.. there is a lot of underlying conversations that must arise.
logic is at least in theory a universal thing that applies to all things. or i should say, a tool that can and should be used in all situations, especially when dealing with such big questions as god.
anyway i was using the example to reflect something about the human mind rather than some correlation between a rock and god. the human mind is capable of coming to honest conclusions about things. when it comes to god, it seems that everything in life conspires to keep that from happening - upbringing, TV - but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
I personally bounced from atheist to agnostic many times.... Now, I really don't care, I try to live my life to what morals I believe in. If this appeases the gods, so be it.
I thought we were on the objective subject of God. This isn't something as solid as throwing a rock out a window. The whole, "If you believe it, it's true" is not a universal law that applies to all things...
In my humble opinion there is no God. There is no particular "reason" why were here. We just are and thats it. One day everyone of us will be rotting in the earth no matter who we think runs the big show.
I guess we all struggle to rationalize those facts in different ways(god, buddha, math, bull****ting). The end result remains the same. Worms eating the brain.
well take that to the same extreme as the window example. if everything i see is only going to reinforce some preconceived idea that i have, then if i for some reason believe that a building's 30th floor window is really on ground level, then i can throw rocks out of it, watch them fall 30 stories and still warp that information to fit my idea that the window is really at ground level ('oh, those rocks falling are a hologram'). so then, i could still jump out of the window with absolute certainty.
fortunately for all of us, that's not quite the way the human brain works (when it's working, i should say). there is such a thing as honestly looking for the explanation behind something. the problem is that, when it comes to religion, it just becomes a bit more difficult than the window example. but that hardly makes it impossible.
ok, i believe i can fly. seeya later guys, i'm out the window...
Hahaha, I meant; if you want to believe it, then you will keep finding evidence on why it is true, and if you want to prove it false, you will keep seeing evidence you deem it to be false.
But isn't change illusion? Change can only have effect on form, and form is non-existent
But I guess you are right when it comes to the "phenomenal" world.
No, permanence is an illusion. And change does not necessarily effect form exclusively.
That form is non-existent, also, is an idea more than it is a fact or even a working hypothesis.
But isn't change illusion? Change can only have effect on form, and form is non-existent
But I guess you are right when it comes to the "phenomenal" world.
evolution is quite a simple thing. It applies not only to animals, but to everything in this world; What was is what died, and what is is what survived. The phenomenal world is impermanent, thus evolusion applies to everything we know or will ever know.
The thoughts of our minds undergo the same process.
I have not yet found anything that is not impermanent. If you do, plz email me ok?
Leave a comment: