Reason and God

Post Reply New Topic

I was put under a lot of pressure to believe certain things from the moment I was born. I broke through it though, it was tough but I broke through. I see it in you. I suppose I am probably re-experiencing that situation by posting here, and like I said once I get where I am going I won't post again. [thinking some more] I don't like disagreeing but I don't like coercion. Beneath that I think I just feel alone and engaging in argument is a way to distract myself from the pain from being alone - normally I go away feeling unhappy about it, I know it is not the right thing.

Rideforever, as you have said, you were attemptedly forced to become something but you overcame. You also said that you think that all people who have religious views were pressured into them. Thus you infer that you are better than other people in the "fact" that they are "weak willed" unlike you. Isn't it possible that other people weren't forced to have certain views, perhaps they were even strongly discouraged from them, but they kept them because they felt they had made the right decision? Even if they disagree with you? Sure parents can be jerks and try to force religion down children's throats, but do the wrongful actions of a few people make Christianity wrong? People do what they do and God will hold them accountible to His standard, and FORCING people to believe or not to believe something is wrong. Every person has to make their own decisions. I decide Christianity and I'm going to wait to see that I'm right. You can choose what you like, but in the end we'll all know for sure.

I was trying to be utterly utterly honest because I agree we are not getting anywhere. I invite you to do the same.

These words, non-rational and irrational, do not mean the same thing.

irrational refers to something that is logically impossible like 2+2=7

non-rational refers to something that is logically possible but not provable like X+Y=7

If X + Y = 7 and X + 2*Y = 10, can you solve it?

Which human being on the face of the planet wasn't?

I suggest you stop halucinating things from your past in me.

Who's coercing you? I've stated my beliefs. If you think that's coersion, you may wish to reference a dictionary.
I will not be chastised for stating and explaining my beliefs. That's not wrong in this country.

Can't help you, but I do understand...

Religion does require that leap of faith.

I'm glad you agree. It seems like some Christians give reason more credit than it really deserves when it comes to belief in God. I purposefully left out a description of the personal nature of faith in God because I figured that would be somewhat different for different people. However, I enjoyed reading your description of that experience.

Y=3
X=4

So this equation is provable given more information, but the point of the analogy is that if that additional information doesn't exist, it could be true or false but one would have to decide without logic or just be Agnostic about the whole question.

Last edited by spdjeanne on 27 Aug 2007, 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by the way, speaking of math analogies...

I was thinking about one that might work for how Christ atoned for the sin of the whole world. It doesn't seem like just one person would be enough to cancel out all that sin. Think of every person's sins added up then multiplied by every other person's sin, but throw just one zero, one person with no sin, in there and look at what happens. Just a thought.

Witt: your philosophy is very close to what I think as well.
Very interesting to read.
Is it something you've thought out yourself, or is it a already existing school of thought?
What are your influences?

There's a wee point that I would like you to clarify, though:

I assume you refer to that matter/energy can't be destroyed, so the matter that is our bodies and the energy that made up our minds still exists, however, is there anything in it for us?
I mean, do you think we still retain some kind of consciousness or something like that after death?
Like a "soul" or whatever you'd call it?

In the Mind/Body/Spirit way of looking at it, I see the Mind as the result of the abstract energy (Spirit) patterns stabilised by the matter of the brain (Body), pretty much, but if the brain stops working/is destroyed, the energy (Spirit) leaves the wiring (Body) and the wiring for the pattern (Mind) is destroyed as well.
So while the energy and matter don't disappear, the pattern that is "our" in "our existence" is destroyed.

I'm a believer in God, and I can't be convinced otherwise, because of existence.
I also believe in Daoism, thus seeing how God, or Dao is both positive and negative.
Since we're all a part of God and creation, I also believe we all have the powers to create or world or manifest things by using our minds.
What's your take on that?

My influences are Parmenides,Spinoza,Boehme,Fichte,Schelling and Hegel.

Opinions expressed above are partially original (mine) and partially based on Spinoza's monism and relationship between subject/object in German idealism.
While theories of Spinoza and Hegel are logically perfect,they lack foundation,and I believe that I found foundation of it in the dawn of philosophy...in Parmenides.

I'm actually in process of writing a book with similar themes,although it is not about God,but about identity of subjectivity and objectivity (similar to Schelling and Hegel).



No.
You,like many people identify 'being' as physicality.
My definition is quite wider,and encompassed entire possible existence as such.

Being can be both positive and negative.
Positive being can be physical object,force field or anything similar...
Negative being can be empty space,or vacuum(which literally mean absence in Latin).
How can being be negative?
Simple.Only one being can influence another being,since non-being does not exist.
Although empty space is empty,it still exist,and without it physical object cannot exist.
We can even measure vacuum by instruments,and we have perception of it.
When we say 'nothing' we are thinking about empty space,not about non-existence,since non-existence cannot be perceived as such.
We can even see darkness of emptiness,but non-being is not even dark...since is total lack of existence.But that's not possible since only existence (being) can exist.



As I already said there is no destruction,just transformation.
We are not our brains,since we are able of neurofeedback,and this is evidence of something that exist separately from the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofeedback

Since mind already exist,and basically our mind is us...therefore phenomenon of mind must continue to exist after the end of body functions,although in different form.

Since we have minds right now,it is impossible that some phenomenon starts to exist from nothing,and then turn to nothing.
If we our mind is just result of process in matter,then it means that matter itself have mind phenomenon within itself(in latent form).



Well,something similar exists in dialectic logic of thesis,antithesis and synthesis.



There is also an order in creation and some 'laws' within it.
Our minds are just part of subjective reality,while physical objects are part of objective reality.
Mind can only influence subjective reality,while when it influence objective reality he uses body.
Only God is unification of both,and as such only 'he' can manifest things.

So...no you can't manifest things by using your mind,since you are just part of God,not God itself.

I was trying to be very honest. I invite you to join me.

Do you know why you come here, beyond wanting to surf the internet.

Why, to pick up hot Aspie babes, of course!
(No, they'd only silence me with a baseball bat once they got to know me.)

This is the only online forum I've ever been active in. As I said, and other people agreed, in another thread, WP is a social life for many Aspies -- it is TRULY their community. Mine too.

Witt, there's a concept in biology known as 'emergent properties.' Processes emerge as organization gets more complex that are completely absent in less organized forms. The basic atoms that terrestrial life is composed of (Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) have some suggestive properties, but looking at a pile of charcol and some vials of gas will, in no way, suggest metabolism. Put them together as molecules, and suddenly you have molecular machines of incredible specificity, the ability to store energy and data, and a host of other traits. Put those molecules into a cell, and you have an isolated, self-regulating system: life. Self-replication. Put the cell into a tissue, and suddenly you have community and cooperation. Put the tissue into an organ, and suddenly you have the ability to filter specific substances from the fluid in one set of tubes to the fluid in another set of tubes. The glomerular apparattus and the nephron are in no way intrinsic in those piles of carbon and vials of gas. Put the organ into a living being, and you have a complex system of interacting, very differnt organs; incredible complexity; homeostasis across a wide variety of habitats; evolution. Thought, eventually.

I believe that what I call 'me' is an emergent property of the actions of the cells that make up the organ called my brain, and that once that brain and those cells become dis-organ-ized, the emergent property of 'me' will no longer exist as such. The chemicals that make up 'me' will scatter across the globe and be incorporated into thousands of other organisms, or subducted into the mantle, or be blown into space by a meteor imact. And 'I' won't be aware of any of it.

I think when Witt said 'we will exist eternally', he meant that this place in time can never be erased, and therefore can never cease to have existed. It will alway be, whether we all die tomorrow, and will be thousands of years from now.