|
adam_p88
Stranger
Registered: 03/21/05
Posts: 3
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
BillyGrass said: adam p88: Most (western) religions lump EVERY act into the very limited catagories of GOOD vs EVIL. This is SOOO outdated. We need a better gradient scale, wouldn't you say? Like AWESOME THINGS, GOOD THINGS, NOT SO GOOD THINGS, REALLY BAD STUFF, etc...
In your suggestion of a new gradient scale, you mention the words "good" and "bad". In the current system of evaluation of the nature of a thing or action, there are already different levels of "good" and "bad". So in a sense, your system already exists.
A point has been made, I cannot recall by whom, that cold and evil do not really exist. For what is cold but the absence of heat? And what is evil but the absence of good? Thus, those who are truly evil are those who have no good in them. So, it is unrealistic to ever think any person was ever truly evil.
I suppose in the judging of one's self, one must look to the majority of one's acts. Are the majority of one's acts "good" or are the majority "evil"? The problem lies in the individual's personal definition of something good and something evil. Perhaps this is what led Socrates to conclude that no one would ever do a bad thing, for the sheer reason that the deed they did they did not consider bad, and thus it was not a bad thing to do for them.
Notice how everything we study and attempt to explain leads into something else? The Universe is One..
Adam
Edited by adam_p88 (03/24/05 11:21 PM)
|
paisley1123
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/06
Posts: 4
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
|
Thank you very much for putting in the original "Pascal's Wager" text. It's interesting, if you read it. The whole chart thing is an implication of what he's saying; he doesn't actually outline the exact conclusions the chart draws. Pascal's pretty good with math, but his philosophical writings are his most interesting
Thanks
Edited by paisley1123 (06/06/06 10:59 PM)
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
|
this is known as pascal's wager, and it's flawed for a few reasons.
the biggest is: what if you believe in the wrong god?
good reading on it here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#pascal
and much more here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
|
Telepylus
Babyman
Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 996
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: god proof [Re: wilshire]
#5721335 - 06/06/06 11:53 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I can put a person inside of a box that proves the existence of God to them.
Would you believe in God if you witnessed an impossible miracle? And then another one, just to back up the first one, and then another one just to back up the other two? Would that be enough for you? Or do you need more than that? What exactly do you need?
In the old days you'd need a Temple. A place that surrounded you with Art So that if you turned east or west, or north or south Your mind would be filled with certain images or symbols And this would be enough to enter into a trance to communicate directly with God.
But things don't work like that anymore. It's even more simple now.
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting
Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
TheShroomHermit said: A friend once drew this chart for me, and said it was the most convincing arguement to believe in god that she has ever seen.
......................God exists...............God doesn?t exist Believe.............Infinite pleasure.......Finite pain Don?t believe.....Infinite pain.............Finite pleasure
If you don?t believe, and when you die you just rot, then your existence was wholly pleasurable. If you do believe, and when you die thats it, then your existence was wholly painful. But if you don?t believe, and that turns out to be wrong, you spend the forever in pain. But your existence was not wholly painful. If you believe, and you turn out to be right, you spend forever in pleasure. But your existence was not wholly pleasurable, either.
But this chart compares only two groups, believers of a monotheistic (belief in god) with a ?heaven-hell? scenario as an afterlife, and while everyone else, including those who believe in a different god or gods, are lumped into the ?don?t believe? category. I think this chart was designed so simply to ignores a strong, real-life, point. Why have hundreds of religions claimed to be the one true faith, and how can you discount hundreds of religions by believing in just one? Each has its own wide base of believers, of which there are many willing to die for their belief. Going by the chart, if billions of people are picking the wrong god, they will live a wholly painful existence. There isn?t a way to tell for sure if you?ve picked right, and your chances of picking the one right one are terrible. Much less than 1%, if you go by how many religions there are to choose from.
And it seems pPlenty of people go to church as ?just in case? patrons of that faith. Of course, nobody wants to spend existence in infinite pain, but should the fear of that be enough to perpetuate the very rules that caused that fear? To me, it was a great liberation when I realized that the biggest argument for believing in god is a looped; you first must believe to be afraid of not believing.
all these religions believe in the same god, but in different ways, some are more foolish in their aproximation of devine truth, some less foolish, neither is 100% accurate.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting
Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Telepylus said: I can put a person inside of a box that proves the existence of God to them.
Would you believe in God if you witnessed an impossible miracle? And then another one, just to back up the first one, and then another one just to back up the other two? Would that be enough for you? Or do you need more than that? What exactly do you need?
In the old days you'd need a Temple. A place that surrounded you with Art So that if you turned east or west, or north or south Your mind would be filled with certain images or symbols And this would be enough to enter into a trance to communicate directly with God.
But things don't work like that anymore. It's even more simple now.
you can't see a miracle if you don't believe in miracles. Even if you see that which is a miracle for believers, it won't be a miracle for you because you don't believe.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
capliberty
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
|
If any definition of god doesn't help you fullfill a better life then that definition of god useless.
What god is, is it energy, is it a supreme being, is it everything, is it us, is it nothing, is it a concept, is it all the above, is it even a part of evil, is it something thats inconceivable from the human mind and pointless talk about, is it anything good which opposes bad, is it the father of jesus, is it allah, is it visnu,
I say who knows, the truth of it all is that we know theres more than meets the eye, some people are sick of other peoples rants about god and say hey I rather be in hell, others are confused, being condemned to hell shows no mercery which is a contridiction to the nature our being, for we were born in a world of duality, good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, and what is "free will" when your only are free to the extent of the circumstances you live in.
But we all must take responsiblity for our circumstances in our lives, I for one don't really even think about god 95% of the time, If there is one teaching that I do agree with Buddha, is that I don't concern myself with what I don't know, raving about how I found god, and saying I found proof, is only good for the person that believes it, for many it looks silly, for it seems to me that we could interpret anything as proof, this is the birth of self rightousness in opinion, and orgin of destruction, I can't stand people who claim they know something, and they're special, and superior in a certain light, because if they really were I doubt they would continuely have to profess it, to me this is the least humbling stance that a person can have and the biggest turn off.
These people continually profess, postulate, assume, things that really show nothing but their ignorance. I don't have all the answers, maybe its nothing about knowing, but still I can't adopt this behavior, to me truly wise people are just what they are, wise.
|
Octavius
Stranger
Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 159
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
|
Humans are weak minded,.. and as something crosses there mind that is that important as what happens after death, they must believe or else.
Peace. Octavius
|
Telepylus
Babyman
Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 996
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: god proof [Re: Octavius]
#5722925 - 06/07/06 01:52 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
oldwood said-"you can't see a miracle if you don't believe in miracles. Even if you see that which is a miracle for believers, it won't be a miracle for you because you don't believe."
when you see a bullet with a tip made of lead, turn into solid gold in your hand, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. it happened.
you can see miracles without believing in them
but more commonly, what happens is one will witness a miracle and then totally forget about it the next day. and the fact that people do forget so easily, that isn't because they don't believe, it's because they are stupid, lol.
most people need to see miracles happen more than once to believe in them, that much is true.
|
capliberty
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
|
If I seen a lead bullet turn into gold, I would definitely believe in a supernatural being with a higher level of consciousness, that much I could say for sure.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Pascal said: Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up.
The coin is an abstract one which will never be flipped.
Quote:
What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Sounds great.
Quote:
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it.
Yes, making a choice to believe in something that will never be substantiated is to be accepted because "one knows nothing about them making their choice".
Quote:
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked.
It is not optional, eh? I don't believe it is to be demonstrated exactly how this is not optional. I am in no manner forced to choose to believe that Saddam Hussein has installments on the surface of Mars or not... so what is the difference between these two choices that necessitates that one of them is not optional? Cannot the jury remain out?
Quote:
Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose...
He has already accepted as evident something which has absolutely no basis. Since we must choose? Well, we do not have to make a choice. The fact that his point and analysis rests upon a faulty assumption, it is baseless, and needs not be addressed.
To feel compelled to believe in something when one has no means to actually know and understand the nature of what they wish to believe in is ridiculous, and it is detrimental to one's ability to effectively navigate reality, as one's mind does not accurately reflect reality and its nature as it can be directly perceived.
A sign at a church on my way to work proclaims:
"Love God. Love others."
Why don't we focus inward on our experience of reality, and bring awareness into our direct perception of reality, to exist in direct communion with reality, as reality. To do so would negate the need for such meaningless suggestions. Talk of God, an abstract concept, as though it were an absolute aspect of reality, is inherently obstructive of one's direct perception and subsequent understanding of reality.
Do we really need God?
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
solemntruth
Solemntruth
Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 27
Loc: TN USA
Last seen: 17 years, 8 days
|
|
The proof of God’s existence rests with the etymology of languages. The first word of any language is the infinitive of “to be”. Who are we except human beings? So, what being is God?
The state of our human being is transient from past, present or future. Yet, God’s being is always in the present. He doesn’t change with time or dimensions.
William Shakespeare posed us a question: “To be or not to be”? Many of us may have neglected to ponder the answer.
If we as human beings were to ponder upon the message of the Apostle Paul, we would learn that God calls all things to transit from our state of existence of: “be not” to “be” and back again to “be not”.
Rom.4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Ultimately, the proof of God’s existence is in his name which is not I WAS or I WILL BE, rather I AM.
Exod.3:14 And God said unto Moses, I am that I am: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Edited by solemntruth (06/08/06 12:17 AM)
|
Basilides
Servent ofWisdom
Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Why don't we focus inward on our experience of reality, and bring awareness into our direct perception of reality, to exist in direct communion with reality, as reality. To do so would negate the need for such meaningless suggestions. Talk of God, an abstract concept, as though it were an absolute aspect of reality, is inherently obstructive of one's direct perception and subsequent understanding of reality.
Exactly what is your interpretation of "God" - (Logos, whether called Allah, Brahman, Jehovah, etc) ? Is it strictly in the fundamentalist sense (ie, bearded guy in the sky) or do you reject the possibility of anything outside what is registered by human sense data? What about the contention of the preceding Ground of Being by Gnostics, the Clear Light of Buddhists, the "Beloved Spectacle" of Sufis?
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting
Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
|
It's impossible to find proof of god right now because god means so many things. For some it is an abstract concept, for others it is some kind of oneness of the universe, for others it is some kind of a spirit within all things, for some it is a singular entity with great power with a specific relationship with human race.. Some give god to little credit and deminish him, others give him too much credit and absolutise him, others relativise him.
really how do you find proof of something that you can't make up your mind what it is?
Imagine if someone sent to you to the marketplace to find a Thing, and they just said you should buy The Thing. What would you buy? And where would you even look for it?
Everyone comes here with their own vision of what god is and then a discussion begins, while the only thing all have in common is the word god. It's funny really.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting
Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Do we really need God?
Peace.
Some people need god, some don't, but that question excludes the possibility that god is something real. Supose god is real in that way as it is described in the Bible, did citisens of Gomorah need god? Certainly not, but it was besides the point because they got burned by god for real wheather they accepted him as a part of reality or not. Also they may have chosen not to believe and worship in such a cruel god, but again he had power over them right or wrong, and that didn't save them from disaster.
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
ive always had a theory that when you die, you exist as your last thought, until it finally gets absorbed into the aether (for lack of a better term?)
so i guess if you are in the middle of a nightmare...
bring a camera
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
capliberty
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
|
Re: god proof [Re: kotik]
#5726219 - 06/08/06 10:32 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You can kind of relate to god as a person who takes care of a small fish aquarium,
the person who takes care of a small fish aquarium, sets up the aquarium or creates a world, which is the fishes world, he also dictates what fish are going to swim and live in aquarium to create a perfect habitat, big fish or aggressive fish maybe rejected because of imbalanced ecosystem,
the fish depend on the higher conscious for food, regulation of temperature, law, meaning population control, weeding out bad fish, PH level, equivalent to air etc. If the environment is instable fish die or live in stressed environment, maybe the owner loses interest and stops feeding them, sometimes the owner may want to revamp the ecosystem,
but the main objective is create a beautiful environment, in which he can observe and be entertained, if it happens on smaller level with simpler animals, is it unreasonable to speculate that happens on the larger with more complex animals, and the owner having even more control. In his eyes we're nothing but simple fish that act and react in an aquarium which is the world.
|
ultrafeel
fun-da-mental
Registered: 05/24/06
Posts: 22
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
OldWoodSpecter said:
Well, each man, no matter how religious has his own god, or image of god. Because any image of god, or a vision of god, or a description of god is a reduction of god to something less than god. I even doubt that you can think about god, because you are reducing it to less than everything and ultimate. You can perhapse live god, and be god (be one with god), but there is nothing to be said about god.
What can be said about being? Well, what is just is, you can't describe it. You can only be being, nothing else.
I 100% support your opinion!
Thank you very much!
|
ultrafeel
fun-da-mental
Registered: 05/24/06
Posts: 22
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
But let us try this one:
Imagine there is indeed god, whatever it is (some 'personal perfect entity', some 'energy', a 'spirit', whatever)
Imagine after death, you finally see him/her/it.
You shout: "Wow, finally I see you, from 'face to face'!"
really think about this. Maybe you 'see' him/her/it, or you 'feel'the presence of some enormous love, or you confront infinity/eternety which you identify as god, or however the 'contact' will look like.
So, there is god, and there is you.
But then: WHO ARE YOU THEN?!
There is god in its infinite glory, BUT WHO IS WATCHING THIS GOD ?!?!
Folks, if you really dig deep into this, enlightenment is very close...!!
|
OldWoodSpecter
waiting
Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
ultrafeel said:
Quote:
OldWoodSpecter said:
Well, each man, no matter how religious has his own god, or image of god. Because any image of god, or a vision of god, or a description of god is a reduction of god to something less than god. I even doubt that you can think about god, because you are reducing it to less than everything and ultimate. You can perhapse live god, and be god (be one with god), but there is nothing to be said about god.
What can be said about being? Well, what is just is, you can't describe it. You can only be being, nothing else.
I 100% support your opinion!
Thank you very much!
where did you dig up that old quote, it must have been a year since then
-------------------- I descend upon your earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine
|
|