A question for the enlightened.

[Carl G]

Humans seem to have an easier time accepting the impossible than they do accepting the improbable.

Give us a relevant example?

An example is how theists rebel against evolution because they can't handle the improbable, but then they go and use God to explain design.

The "impossible" aspect of God is ignoring the fact that such a being would be just as if not much more exquisitely designed.

In other words, why are theists puzzled by the design of organisms and such, but are not puzzled by the design of God?

Really, it's impossible for such a person to be logical. But Theists believe they are logical. And this is because they are more apt to believe in the impossible than they are the improbable.

Your point about God being designed is moot, however. Just as existence itself just is, it did not arise, the same argument can be applied to God. In fact it is applied to God by the founders of this forum, though the definition of God is different. Point being, whether the Universe is governed by Intelligence or only by Cause and Effect, the logic is the same regarding origin -- in both cases there necessarily cannot be one (an origin).

And Cory, I don't think it is wise to group all theists together, it tends to promote inaccuracy in discussion.

[Cory Duchesne]

Your point about God being designed is moot, however. Just as existence itself just is, it did not arise, the same argument can be applied to God.

Ok, but if you're going to apply that argument to God, you better not be puzzled over the design of organisms. Why is it ok to apply the "just is" argument to God, but not ok to apply it to organisms?

In fact it is applied to God by the founders of this forum,though the definition of God is different.

Exactly, so your bringing them up is irrelevant.

Point being, whether the Universe is governed by Intelligence or only by Cause and Effect, the logic is the same regarding origin -- in both cases there necessarily cannot be one (an origin).

Yes, and all "intelligent design people" will complain that organisms need a designer, an origin, ignoring the fact that introducing God does not solve their problem AT ALL.

And Cory, I don't think it is wise to group all theists together, it tends to promote inaccuracy in discussion.

I can at least group all intelligent design people together, since they simultaneously complain that the designed must have a designer, and yet accept something designed without a designer. Do you see the insanity? They want to have their cake and eat it too. They are in love with the impossible.

[Carl G]

I can at least group all intelligent design people together, since they simultaneously complain that the designed must have a designer, and yet accept something designed without a designer. Do you see the insanity? They want to have their cake and eat it too. They are in love with the impossible.

That is no different from arguing for Cause and Effect as being the source of all things (except for Cause and Effect itself, in that there can be no first Cause?). So are you yourself not 'in love with' something just as 'impossible'?

[Cory Duchesne]

I can at least group all intelligent design people together, since they simultaneously complain that the designed must have a designer, and yet accept something designed without a designer. Do you see the insanity? They want to have their cake and eat it too. They are in love with the impossible.

That is no different from arguing for Cause and Effect as being the source of all things (except for Cause and Effect itself, in that there can be no first Cause)? So are you yourself not in love with something just as 'impossible'?

I don't argue that cause and effect is the source of all things. The argument is that there is no source, that all is ultimately eternal, but consciousness must involve duality (cause in contrast to effect). A cause is a thing, and an effect is a thing, but that does not mean that these things actually exist in a concrete, inherent sense. In fact, they don't.

[Carl G]

I don't argue that cause and effect is the source of all things. The argument is that there is no source, that all is ultimately eternal,

Okay, there is no source, no first cause, no beginning or arrival of existence, or of God (however we may define that).

but consciousness must involve duality (cause in contrast to effect).

Must? Consciousness in Oneness is not possible? The ALL cannot be self-aware? Why not?

A cause is a thing, and an effect is a thing, but that does not mean that these things actually exist in a concrete, inherent sense. In fact, they don't.

How does this relate to the question of Universal Intelligence?

[Cory Duchesne]

I don't argue that cause and effect is the source of all things. The argument is that there is no source, that all is ultimately eternal,

Okay, there is no source, no first cause, no beginning or arrival of existence, or of God (however we may define that).

correct.

but consciousness must involve duality (cause in contrast to effect).

Must? Consciousness in Oneness is not possible?

You can't experience oneness. Experience demands differentiation, duality.

However, you can arrive at the truth that all is one. But you can't actually experience oneness, because experience is relationship (differentiation). If you eliminate all relationship (differentiation), then you eliminate consciousness.

The ALL cannot be self-aware? Why not?

When looked at in a very specific context (a person realizing that, logically, he is an indivisible part combining with the all) the all can indeed be self aware, but in that context, we are referring to a single helpless person at mercy to the rest of the cosmos.

However, the idea that the infinite cosmos itself can be self aware is absurd, because consciousness requires inputs, and inputs implies that there is something else being observed a part from the observer. The observer requires something to be observed, and if something is observed, then the observer is not the all. If he was the all, then there would be nothing to observe! And when observation becomes impossible, then consciousness becomes impossible.

A cause is a thing, and an effect is a thing, but that does not mean that these things actually exist in a concrete, inherent sense. In fact, they don't.

How does this relate to the question of Universal Intelligence?

if you go back and read you'll notice that you said: "That is no different from arguing for Cause and Effect as being the source of all things"

And then I explained to you how it's different.

[Blair]

That's a good answer. I don't dispute it. Can logic? The logicians on this forum would appear to purport that it does. What can we know? What we can feel, for one. What we can reason, for two. Does one supersede the other? I think reason and feeling ideally work together, to inform about the big things.

As I have said, the ego is placed as a mechanism to be able to ignore God. The soul desires an experience of being free from God's radiance, thus put in human form.

I have basically come to the same conclusion as you. Does this make us theists? Does this lump us with the Old Man on a Cloud believers? How do you picture this "overbeing"? Do you see God as basically a giant man, you know, with arms and legs, like, sitting on a throne somewhere? What does God embody? For me the answer is "everything". Probably the main difference between myself and an atheist, then, is that I see The All as having a Conscious Mind, and Intention.

No God is not an embodiment that can be visualized easily. The closest would be a fluid being that has the contours of a human, but is sharper and smarter and more onto-it than you can possibly muster as a human. God knows everything. God is the loving master who gives all and asks for nothing in return.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No God is not an embodiment that can be visualized easily. The closest would be a fluid being that has the contours of a human, but is sharper and smarter and more onto-it than you can possibly muster as a human.

You mean something like this?

[Blair]

No God is not an embodiment that can be visualized easily. The closest would be a fluid being that has the contours of a human, but is sharper and smarter and more onto-it than you can possibly muster as a human.

You mean something like this?

Of course it's something like that.

Who do you think you are, Miss-I don't have Cancer?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The troll's back Dan; watch out for flying ad hominems.

[Dan Rowden]

It's the turd-dropping flying ad hominems that you really have to watch out for. They don't make umbrellas for that contingency.

[Carl G]

How do you picture this "overbeing"? Do you see God as basically a giant man, you know, with arms and legs, like, sitting on a throne somewhere? What does God embody?

No God is not an embodiment that can be visualized easily. The closest would be a fluid being that has the contours of a human, but is sharper and smarter and more onto-it than you can possibly muster as a human. God knows everything. God is the loving master who gives all and asks for nothing in return.

Okay, so you do see God as a man, albeit a super-man.

Now, where do you see God as being? Is there a throne somewhere?

[Kunga]

not to bring religion into this....but why did Buddha propose to not have any view ?
my guess is because we don't have 100% of all the answers to all the questions.
How can we have a confirmed view of anything without knowing everything unequivicably .
We'd have to be Enlightened to know everything there is to know in the Universe(s).
Not only KNOW EVERTYTHING...but have unlimited love and compassion....
it seems it is rare that extremely intelligent people have equal amounts of compassion.

No wisdom without compassion.

The Devil(whatever it is) has always been depicted as being brilliant.

Buddha even said not to belive just because it is logical....(i will find the quote if nessesary) it's in the MN.

[Carmel]

Kunga:
The Devil(whatever it is) has always been depicted as being brilliant.

Carmel:
Intelligence is often overrated.;)

Kunga:
Buddha even said not to belive just because it is logical....

Carmel:
It seems to me, that often we engage in our own brand of subjective "logic", yet somehow we think that our "logic" is more "logical" than the someone else's.

In spite of this, It's still a worthy goal though, to strive to be "logical", think things through before forming an opinion and not to accept everything at face value.

[mensa-maniac]

This turd troll wants to know what ad hominen is? I can surmise what it means but I want to know it's true meaning.

And for the record, I didn't know I was logical before it was told to me, so I don't give a shit if I am or not! I'm here like everyone else is to share my thoughts.

[mensa-maniac]

not to bring religion into this....but why did Buddha propose to not have any view ?
my guess is because we don't have 100% of all the answers to all the questions.
How can we have a confirmed view of anything without knowing everything unequivicably .
We'd have to be Enlightened to know everything there is to know in the Universe(s).
Not only KNOW EVERTYTHING...but have unlimited love and compassion....
it seems it is rare that extremely intelligent people have equal amounts of compassion.

No wisdom without compassion.

The Devil(whatever it is) has always been depicted as being brilliant.

Buddha even said not to belive just because it is logical....(i will find the quote if nessesary) it's in the MN.

Mensa-maniac: So if you choose not to believe in logic, than you have illogical left to believe in. Buddha was foolish to say such a foolish comment, if indeed he said it at all.

[Pincho Paxton]

Humans seem to have an easier time accepting the impossible than they do accepting the improbable.

That's very accurate.

Time travel sounds like a lot of fun so it's accepted, but I think it's impossible.

But Gravity as a push instead of a pull is not accepted, but the two things are barely distinguishable.

[Carl G]

Must? Consciousness in Oneness is not possible

You can't experience oneness.

You? Me? I'm speaking of God. Can God not potentially be self aware?

Experience demands differentiation, duality.

Couldn't the Mind experience the Body? Why would some OTHER be necessary?

However, you can arrive at the truth that all is one. But you can't actually experience oneness, because experience is relationship (differentiation). If you eliminate all relationship (differentiation), then you eliminate consciousness.

Again, cannot the One can have relationship with It's Parts? Or one part -- Awareness -- with another -- Action?

When looked at in a very specific context (a person realizing that, logically, he is an indivisible part combining with the all) the all can indeed be self aware, but in that context, we are referring to a single helpless person at mercy to the rest of the cosmos.

However, the idea that the infinite cosmos itself can be self aware is absurd, because consciousness requires inputs, and inputs implies that there is something else being observed a part from the observer.

Why? When one is meditating -- free of normal external stimulus -- for example, can not some part detach and observe the rest of the organism in repose? What is to prevent Infinite Mind from observing the Infinite Process, in other words?

The observer requires something to be observed, and if something is observed, then the observer is not the all.

I understand your reasoning. Could the Mind not observe itself, its own processes? Could Consciousness itself not be self reflecting? Who are we to say? What is our logic to say such a thing? We can only extrapolate based on our limited view.

If he was the all, then there would be nothing to observe!

Yes, there is: Self

And when observation becomes impossible, then consciousness becomes impossible

Attempting to prove that the ALL cannot be Conscious, haha. Proving the limitation of logic, is more like it, I think.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This turd troll wants to know what ad hominen is? I can surmise what it means but I want to know it's true meaning.

Here - review this website.

[Kunga]

not to bring religion into this....but why did Buddha propose to not have any view ?
my guess is because we don't have 100% of all the answers to all the questions.
How can we have a confirmed view of anything without knowing everything unequivicably .
We'd have to be Enlightened to know everything there is to know in the Universe(s).
Not only KNOW EVERTYTHING...but have unlimited love and compassion....
it seems it is rare that extremely intelligent people have equal amounts of compassion.

No wisdom without compassion.

The Devil(whatever it is) has always been depicted as being brilliant.

Buddha even said not to belive just because it is logical....(i will find the quote if nessesary) it's in the MN.

Mensa-maniac: So if you choose not to believe in logic, than you have illogical left to believe in. Buddha was foolish to say such a foolish comment, if indeed he said it at all.

This is what i was refering to...scroll down to The Kalama Sutta part :


http://www.thedhamma.com/anguttaranikaya.htm

[mensa-maniac]

Yes, thanks for the link, I read it. I really didn't doubt you, I doubted that Buddha would make a comment like that. I wonder why people would put their beliefs in Buddha over Jesus Christ.

One of the Ten Commandments says Thou shalt have no graven images or put other Gods before me. Buddha is like a God to the people, they worship his wisdom. And God is denied.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes, thanks for the link, I read it. I really didn't doubt you, I doubted that Buddha would make a comment like that. I wonder why people would put their beliefs in Buddha over Jesus Christ.

One of the Ten Commandments says Thou shalt have no graven images or put other Gods before me. Buddha is like a God to the people, they worship his wisdom. And God is denied.

Are you serious? When you asked " I wonder why people would put their beliefs in Buddha over Jesus Christ" and followed that by quoting one of the Ten Commandments, did you mean to imply that Buddhists should believe in Jesus Christ over Buddha because one of the Ten Commandments says so?

[Kunga]

Yes, thanks for the link, I read it. I really didn't doubt you, I doubted that Buddha would make a comment like that. I wonder why people would put their beliefs in Buddha over Jesus Christ.

One of the Ten Commandments says Thou shalt have no graven images or put other Gods before me. Buddha is like a God to the people, they worship his wisdom. And God is denied.

Then why are there so many pictures of Jesus ?

i was a Christian before i studied Buddhism....in Christianity they talk about God like it's going out of style...in Buddhism they don't talk about it..because the truth is so profound...to talk about something as profound as the Absolute Truth and make it concrete and conceptual takes away from the true essence of what it is...the Ultimate truth canno't be conceptualized into a concept like GOD is....

And there are many Buddhists that will tell you they belive in GOD....
Buddha never claimed to be a God.
In Buddhism Gods are not omnipotent/omnipresent...but they have extreamely long lives and think they are Omnipresent/omnipotent....


Today i heard about a 5 year old little girl that was raped and murdered.....why didn't GOD save her ?
That's why i can't belive in a God anymore.
http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11 ... t-charged/

[Cahoot]

Seems that ...

When belief in God brings no peace,
and
when belief in no-God brings no peace,

then it seems logical,
to shift attention away from the object of belief.

Examine the premise labeled “belief,”
rather than clinging to belief
as if Belief itself is an unquestionable deity.

Honestly (to oneself) questioning the premise of belief,
examining the nature of belief itself

may reveal that
belief is necessary, for no peace.

Then again,
maybe no-belief is necessary, for peace.

[Kunga]

Seems that ...

When belief in God brings no peace,
and
when belief in no-God brings no peace,

then it seems logical,
to shift attention away from the object of belief.

Examine the premise labeled “belief,”
rather than clinging to belief
as if Belief itself is an unquestionable deity.

Honestly (to oneself) questioning the premise of belief,
examining the nature of belief itself

may reveal that
belief is necessary, for no peace.

Then again,
maybe no-belief is necessary, for peace.

yes...i know what your saying...but do you belive all that yourself ? :)


http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessary plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.



It's popular to attack someone if they belive in something nowadays....yes i agree some people have beliefs based on total blind faith or ignorance .....yes...people need to belive what ever floats their boat to survive mentally...maybe untruth protects them from going crazy.....

and some are crazy for their deranged belifes......