Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

God Idea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    bed time...

    ...but before I go...whoever wrote this original piece never read the catholic catechism:

    "God-religions offer no salvation without God. Thus a man might conceivably have climbed to the highest pinnacle of virtue, and he might have led a righteous way of life, and he might even have climbed to the highest level of holiness, yet he is to be condemned to eternal hell just because he did not believe in the existence of God. On the other hand, a man might have sinned deeply and yet, having made a late repentance, he can be forgiven and therefore 'saved'. From the Buddhist point of view, there is no justification in this kind of doctrine."

    This is not true. Catholics (and I'd bet money most don't know this) believe in salvation primarily through charity- good works. Faith alone (in God or Jesus as Son of God) does not grant you salvation.
    "Arhat, I am your father..."
    -the Dark Lord Cod

    Comment


    • #17
      didnt know that arhat thanks

      dave
      simple and natural is my method,
      true and sincere is my principle --Tse Sigung

      Comment


      • #18
        Just thought of something.

        What's going to happen when Lipster reaches god status? Only 150 more posts to go....
        Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

        "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

        (more comments in my User Profile)
        russbo.com


        Comment


        • #19
          ha, i'm at work now so i have plenty of time to post messages!

          okay, lipster, i can see where our two views could be resolved in the karma thread (well, sort of, in a weird way), but i really can't find any push behind your arguements on this one.

          first, to start off with, the watch in the desert story.....yes, the watch has a creator, in a sense that it was "created" to get there. and yes, for the purpose of wandering around a desert and saying "hey, cool watch" then it would be safe to assume that the watch came from a watch factory at some point. but there's several misuses of this story to show that the universe was "created," especially by an "intelligent creator." you gave one of two options....that the watch was manufactured and then left in the desert...or, wind had miraculously blown things into the form of a watch. either way, there was a cause and effect to get this thing that at least looks like a watch on the ground. in essence, either way, it is "created." now, i know this isnt what you meant (or if it is, please tell me!). next, your talk on "knowing" something....a lot of people complain about the Cartesian standard in, what i think, very wrong ways. yes, ordinary, everday logic dictates that it is perfectly reasonable to say that watch actually came from somewhere other than the sand blowing around. it is a sort of faith based on experience....i've seen watches before, and none of those were made of wind-blown sand. perfectly safe in everyday life, and this is what you're doing. however, when dealing events outside our experience, we are talking about an objective perspective. modern science teaches us that a perfectly objective perspective is not attainable, at least now. and since it is within the realm of possibilities that indeed the watch is sand, we really cannot "know." in this aspect, we're not interested in the realm of possibilities, we're talking about models that attempt to explain to our feeble brains how the universe works. my arguement is simply that it is easier and more rational to explain the universe without a Creator God. also, if you wanted to take this story further, you can take the causes and actions in order to get the watch there all the way back to the "beginning" of the universe, in which case we'd be right back where we started in this arguement.

          second.....intelligence.....complexity....anthropo morphic.....etc. yeah, these words are getting thrown around. my explanation back on the karma thread was indeed anthopocentric....it wasn't correct, but served the needs of arguement. now, i dare suggest that you yourself are being anthropocentric! teehee. and while i know you are trying not to be, your use of the term intelligence at least implies it a little. indeed, i'm curious to know your definition of intelligence. i think we can say something is intelligent because we are ourselves are intelligent (or at least we fool ourselves into thinking that, heh). so in a way we are saying something is intelligent because it is like us or appeals to our senses in some way. and because we're using ourselves as the meter-stick of intelligence, this concept is very anthropocentric. for example, language is something we judge by how we as humans use it....its something that really can't be separated from the human experience. not that that's bad, but it's still anthopocentric. so, in these sorts of discussions, i prefer to leave intelligence out and explain it in terms of complexity. we have so-called laws of physics that dictate the movement of particles. if we are trying to predict the movement of one particle, just by itself, very very easy. if undisturbed, it will mantain the same vector. now, throw in a few more particles and some sort of boundaries to bounce off....they'll collide with themselves and the boundaries. now you have to break out the calculator and some high school trig to predict what's gonna go on. now, there's the universe. tada! complexity! humans (or anything else that looks like it may have had an intelligent design) are not exceptions to the rule. they are not special, just extremely complex interactions. try to predict where a human will be tomarrow, the next day, the next year, you can't. now, there's things such as choice vs. determinism which are a whole mess to get into, things that are resolvable, in my mind, but we'll leave those for another time. but let's look at "simpler" complex system, like geology or weather prediction. weather could be predictable if 1) we were somehow magically able to model all the interactions of particles involved (requires objective perspective) and 2) a computer big enough to handle the modeling (don't hold your breath). granted, for our daily purposes, weather prediction is pretty darn good for tomorrow, this week, and maybe a little further than that, but the further away our prediction point is, the less reliable it is. that's what they call a chaotic system. of course, nobody ever applies the idea of intelligence to chaotic systems. they appear random and chaotic because we don't have the means to predict it, not because some very smart jerk god wants to confuse us. of course, humans have a sense of aethetics that they apply to nearly everything they perceive. if a cloud in the sky looks way too much like Aberham Lincoln, that's our aethetics, not the inherent quality of the cloud. that's not intelligence, no matter how intricate and beautiful this cloud was. just because something blows our mind doesn't in any way demand that something more intelligent than us had to conjure it up.

          so, going back to "knowing" no, we can't know for sure, we are dealing with many alternatives. but its a black box function, we may not know what goes on inside, but we can experience the input and output of our lives. in addition to this, its hard to think of one possibility being greater than the other with regards to this topic. i'm simply saying that my explanation for this particular black box function has no place for a creator god for the sake of simplicity, because with your possibility, you have start coming up with all sorts of things like intelligence, being, creation, perfection, etc. etc. things that really require people to bend their minds around a lot of contradictory and unuseful concepts.

          and that's the thing, there's many religions that demand a restricted viewpoint, whatever was chosen as the best possibility. but then there's buddhism, jainism, sankya-yoga, etc that demand no hard and fast viewpoint need be taken, only models to be studied. a model without a Creator God is just simpler, explains much of what we experience, and even opens up a greater amount of possibilities to be studied. i guess in western philosophy you'd call that Occam's Razor? God and gods can still exist, in all conceivable ways. thus we can talk about intelligence and purpose in ways that are indeed anthopomorphic but doesn't at all interfere with the basic model.

          okay, i'm done for now, though i could go on. explain yourself some more lipster...why do you use the term intelligence in describing the absolute? is there a need? and....oh god....here's the can of worms...does intelligence imply purpose?

          cheers
          -Jesse Pasleytm
          "How do I know? Because my sensei told me!"

          Comment


          • #20
            No, but what I am saying, is that, given the complexity of life on this planet, and all the various and sundry and complicated interactions not only in the human body but in the world in general, my point is, the whole concept of one being thinking all of this stuff up, and making it work, is a little stretched.
            But Doc, we're dealing with an infinite being here. The most mind boggling complexities are nothing to an infinite being.

            It's easier to accept some sort of evolutionary process, for one simple reason: we have proof of it, just in our own lifetime.
            Okay so now we come to evolution. To answer this I guess I'd have to disprove evolution in relation to this topic. If you're interested I could go into a whole long post about it but I won't until you say so since it would probably be looong. Meanwhile, just bear in mind that Darwin himself said that his theory is flawed.

            But if you bothered to study the actual figures themselves I think you'd find that it would be easier to accept the other way round. The probabilities are just too astronomical.


            Which is why your argument is basically flawed, and from a rhetorical standpoint, you should have never started it, because you have no way of winning it. Hey, it's not a reflection on your intelligence or anything; it's purely a reflection upon the stance that you took. (Don't choose an untenable position, unless you're doing it just for argument's sake).
            Well I am just doing this for argument's sake, with the intention of learning some shit I didn't know before. But give me time...

            Suffice it to say all this would be a hell of alot clearer if I was talking face to face.


            Jess, heh good stuff. I'll respond to that soon, it'll take a wee bit of deliberation.

            Peace

            Comment


            • #21
              Jesse, I haven't forgotten, I'll get back to what you wrote soon. I'm a bit busy right now and I gotta be clear on it before I respond...

              Peace

              Comment


              • #22
                first post

                Shaolin Ninja, Where did you get that first post from anyway???



                So here is a little god argument from Borges:

                Argumentum Ornithologicum

                I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don't know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let's say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

                Comment


                • #23
                  by the way

                  DOc!!!! I am so sick of logging in so i can post!! ARGGGGHHH.

                  God must be testing me???

                  Why can't I just log in once and then post however long I want and then log out?

                  The way it is I wind up having to copy what i write and then repost it because it always tells me that i am not logged in and then I lose my post!!!!!

                  Please help. I must log in nine times each time I visit the site and want to post something.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That used to happen with me too. It drops the login after a certain amount of inactivity. Just get into the habit of copying it when you want to post, click back on your browser twice, login again, paste and post.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Okay Jess,

                      Well to be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure what specific points I'm supposed to address. So I'll just outline the argument and you point out the problems you have with it. This is my understanding of the God idea in non Eastern terms.

                      We're dealing with an infinite omnipotent being or presence, call it what you will. It is entirely perfect, the product of complete infinity. There is nothing but It. For whatever reason, there was a will to create something other than Itself of which its essence could be partaken. So this brings us to creation of physical existence. Physicality is imperfect, finite. Therefore, as I mentioned in a previous post, this being has to restrict itself to allow for imperfection - physicality [or an absence of this completely transcendental essence/nature] - to exist. Thus the act of creation is one of carving and dilution of the existing perfect essence, not of creating something new - there cannot be something new, something other then this essence, because ultimately there is nothing other then this perfect essence.

                      ....that the watch was manufactured and then left in the desert...or, wind had miraculously blown things into the form of a watch. either way, there was a cause and effect to get this thing that at least looks like a watch on the ground. in essence, either way, it is "created."
                      Sorry if I'm being slow, but I didn't get what exactly your point is here. Does the above satisfy any points with regard to the object being 'created'?


                      , when dealing events outside our experience, we are talking about an objective perspective. modern science teaches us that a perfectly objective perspective is not attainable, at least now. and since it is within the realm of possibilities that indeed the watch is sand, we really cannot "know."
                      Hmm, I have a problem with this, but I'll get to it later.


                      my argument is simply that it is easier and more rational to explain the universe without a Creator God.
                      Ah, now this is a major point. I'm saying that quite frankly it isn't. IT ISN'T. Firstly, the theory of evolution is flawed, secondly, if you study the actual astronomical figures of probability here, it simply isn't more rational to assume there is no Creator. Anyway, evolution only supplies an alternative view, it doesn't in any way put forward a more plausible theory. If you ignore the actual numbers involved, maybe it does, but then that's just flawed investigation. Anyway, if you believe my point on evolution is incorrect, please say so.

                      Think about the restriction principle. It could sort out some problems with cause and effect. If you're interested in more technicalities of it I'd be happy.

                      so, in these sorts of discussions, i prefer to leave intelligence out and explain it in terms of complexity. we have so-called laws of physics that dictate the movement of particles. if we are trying to predict the movement of one particle, just by itself, very very easy. if undisturbed, it will maintain the same vector. now, throw in a few more particles and some sort of boundaries to bounce off....they'll collide with themselves and the boundaries. now you have to break out the calculator and some high school trig to predict what's gonna go on. now, there's the universe. tada! complexity! humans (or anything else that looks like it may have had an intelligent design) are not exceptions to the rule.
                      Okay, again, sorry if I'm being repetitious, but this is what my point is hinged on.

                      No, tada, there's not the universe. Complexity is not the whole picture. The originality of this complexity is..

                      This can get annoying, as it's highly pedantic but very important which is why I'm pushing it. I've heard several answers on why my aforementioned points do not indicate a God. But no one has specifically addressed my point of what life energy is powered by. Forget the complexity of design and where it originated or how; how it interacts and forms and continues - what is keeping reality in existence? All your answers deal with an existing product - how things are/were formed, how everything has no beginning or end - it's a cycle, how evolution has formed it, etc. But what created and maintains physicality itself? Forget the structure of an atom and how together they form particles - what powers the atoms? What allows a bush to grow? Nutrients yes, but where does this energy to allow growth come from? You say that humans are just extremely complex interactions, fine, but what is maintaining these interactions? Where does the power to 'exist' come from? This is a point I'm trying to make. Some may think all this irrelevant, that's another matter. This is one question science cannot, and hasn't attempted to answer.

                      Again, I wonder why - apart from cynicism built from experience - is it such a problem for there to have been an original creator? Scientifically. Give me a specific reason. My specific reason against it is that if you put the two ideas next to eachother, the God idea is simply more plausible. Yes, the other idea is plausible too, only much much more improbable. I see your point - it's theoretically perfectly possible for there not to be a Creator, but my point is that it's so much more improbable - again, if you study the facts and figures. So my reason is that the God idea is more plausible *because of the probabilities involved*, and I don't understand the threat that the concept of God poses. I mean, you say that it's more rational to explain the universe without a God. Considering the actual figures, please spell out why.

                      I guess after all this it would bring us back to your original point about 'knowing' anyway, which I'll get to hopefully.

                      Okay, this is really incomplete, sorry if it's jumbled but I'm running out of time. I'll try and address the other points in another post, especially knowing things and intelligence.

                      And I realise that this post has been really anthropocentric, and there’s a whole problem of duality that can come in here, but as you said it serves the need of the argument. For the moment. I’ll try and address that too.

                      Thanks

                      Peace out

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        there's a whole lot a thinkin' goin' on here.

                        the question to really ask ourselves is not whether or not god exists but what do we want out of such thinking and beliefs. The experience in the Christian religion can be very powerful. But if we just get caught up in all these concepts and such about it, then what's the use?

                        Buddhist meditation is devoted to experiencing things as they are and no amount of reading or thinking is going to do you any good. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read or think, but to know that to depend on such things are infact useless when you want a deep understanding of things. The term "god" can be term that many used to describe experience things exactly as they are; however, nowadays people just like to rely on their ideas and maybe even their past experiences of what they call "god."

                        When we don't dwell in things as they are in the here and now, we can get very caught in those things that once were. In doing this we can tend to be totally blind to life right, to reality that is right under our own noses. The point is to understand oneself and know oneself and the best way to do that is to stop and reflect on what you need.

                        well, that's all from me at the moment. oh dear, I've already said too much.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          If god made all things, pre ordained by him why the Buddha asks:
                          according to the supreme deity men will become murderers, theives, unchaste, liars. abusive, bablers, covetous and malicious and perverse in viewe.

                          A bodhisatta questions the divine justice thus: (Brahma is the all-powerfull creator/distroyer in hinduism)

                          "He who has eyes can see the sickenning sight,
                          why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

                          If his wide powers no limits can restrain,
                          why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

                          Why are hos creatures condemned to pain?
                          Why does he not to all give happiness?

                          Why do fraud, lies and ignorance prevail?
                          Why trimphs falsehood- truth and justice fail?

                          I count you Brahma one th'unjust among,
                          Who made a world to shelter wrong."

                          The Buddha states:
                          "If there exists some lord all powerful to fulfill in every creatures bliss or woe
                          and action good or ill;
                          That lord is stained with sin. Man does but wok his will."

                          Namo buddhaya (homege to Gotama buddha)

                          ---------------
                          Pujemi buddham, dhammam, sangham, kusumenanene ca hotu mokkham
                          puppham milayathi yatha idhamme, kayo tatha yathi vinashbavam.
                          (even as these beautiful floweres i offer the buddha will die away, so too will all component things- they pass away, are pianladen, and all things conditioned and unconditioned are soulless)

                          part of the flower offering sutra.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            God

                            Personally, I think it depends on your frame of reference. If your an ant, and someone has you in it's fist, well that might be your god. Personally, I think the nature of the universe can be thought of as legos. Now with a single lego type, one can make infinite combinations and it all depends on how far away from the design you get. The farther away the more it looks unique. Well what if a kid stole some of your lego pieces? Wouldn't you want them back? I think God does.

                            If I was satan, I would want everyone to be weak so I could steal there lego pieces. So I the other person couldn't put it together. I would want to keep them divided and I wouldn't want let them get together. It's really not that complicated.
                            "If you want pure self-defense buy a can of mace." Grandmaster Villari (I think that is it).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Don't he would want to water down the "truth" so to keep people weak, only so he could take more pieces from them?

                              If I was god, and I don't think I am, I'd say, I've come to kick butt and chew bubblegum and I'm all out of the Gum. Wouldn't you want to get back what was rightfully yours?

                              I think people are making it too complicated. Keep it simple, don't you think that the same ideas are used all the time? Just the bigger things become the more complicated they are?

                              Is death real at all? Or is it just an illusion of what to keep us weak.
                              "If you want pure self-defense buy a can of mace." Grandmaster Villari (I think that is it).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                wow. i completely missed this thread and disagree with just about everything i've read. oh well. happy holidays...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X