On consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: On consciousness

Postby Russell » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:57 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:And you are just repeating the QRS's argument that has been repeated to death by followers like Kelly Jones.
And you are just repeating the same old rhetoric that clearly shows that you haven't completely understood what the word "infinite" really implies.
In what sense is the God as defined the Islamics infinite? He has no beginning and end. He is the unmoved mover, as the whole of existence is like a drop of water that cannot move the infinite ocean that is God.
This is a pleasant description of God, but too often have I seen such a description used by religious people who have no idea what it means.
He can remove all of existence by his whim. He can remain in his wujub without the need of being in relation with any other beings to verify his wujud.

To say that such a god is finite would be a logical fallacy in your part. The universe is nothing compared to him, in the way he is defined. The universe is his creation and a tiny, insignificant part of him. And it is said in the scripture that if he is to enter his creation, the universe will instantly vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity, as x/∞ = 0. In what sense is he finite?
Here is where you break off into the same pit that apologetic religious people fall into. Now you're using all kinds of opposing words, like "tiny" and "nothing compared to him." All these words imply some sort of separation. Is God the universe, or is he not? If God is not the "tiny" universe, then God is the universe (i.e. the All) only in a metaphorical sense, balancing it on his fingertips to maintain its existence, so to speak.

It's like saying water only exists because of the gravitational force that holds oxygen and hydrogen molecules together. Water and gravitational forces are both finite parts of the All but do not speak for the All itself.
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Talking Ass » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:15 am

But that, Oh Bluerap of Clear Morning Light, is exactly what it is hinging upon: some rather old, and certainly to us rather archaic if also 'quaint' means of organizing and expressing some intuitive-revelatory ideas about a divinity which is essentially indescribable. The Sufis, I think it must be said, are an ecstatic sect who essentially 'dance their way to understanding'. They employ means that you (all) have not put on the table to arrive at knowing. It is proposed that somehow there is a level of being standing 'behind' the possibility of manifestation! I would say that on certain levels such a notion is a 'logical necessity'. Being and existence, when meditated on, annihilate all possibilities of comprehension or description. One is left with poetry.

As you know I write poetry and have been working on this one:

"Awake ye muses nine, sing me a strain divine,
Unwind the solemn twine, and fly my porcupine..."

Okay, I am not at all either happy witht the most unfortunate 'porcupine', but I do think you see how language produces its own enevitabilities
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Talking Ass » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:23 am

Inevitabilities. Just TRY to edit a post on a f*#$@+g Droid!
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:37 am

Talking Ass wrote:The Sufis, I think it must be said, are an ecstatic sect who essentially 'dance their way to understanding'.

Shallow popcorn knowledge employment alert!

You're thinking of the Dervish dancers of the Sufi Mevlevi Order. It's a bit like saying Christians are a sect hammering people on crosses at Easter. For non-Muslims Universal Sufism is an interesting venture. Hazrat Inayat Khan has certainly influenced me. In fact they erected a temple in plain sight of all the churches inspired by the same landscape I used to dream-walk in.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5026
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On consciousness

Postby Talking Ass » Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:10 am

Diebert 'Dream-Walker',

Actually, I was thinking of a kind of mysticism that might be compared to a 'dance', and by dance I mean an integrated physico-psychico-rational use of self to arrive at understanding. I was not though excluding the Dervishes.

I was not however meaning to detract or to outshine you, nor your advanced knowledge in all these areas. Not only Christianity but now Sufism. *Deep Bows*.

So, it turns out that Diebert, after leaving Christianity, sought to deepen his understanding of spirituality by looking into Islam/Sufism. Please, please tell me and us a little more. Consider me a hungry little one desirous of that Grand Dutch Tit...

;-)
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby jupiviv » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:09 am

Liberty Sea wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite.


It's not me who is defining that. I am representing a theory of the Islamics, who claim their theory to be Truth, just as you claim your theory to be truth. I am just trying to find out the truth, not defending any theory.


I'm just showing why the definitions, whether you are representing or positing them, are wrong. It is impossible for God to be everything if he's said to create something.

How about this: The physical objects are God's creations, and therefore part of God, but God is more than the physical, and can be independent of the physical if he decides to.
But even if we neglect that possibility and say God is not the All, can we know for sure whether the universe as the total sum of physical objects are not created by a conscious being?


I don't know what you define physical objects to be. It's most likely to have either one of these meanings - things that can be perceived by the senses, or any thing whatsoever that exists and has boundaries.

If it means the former, then they are only created by consciousness in the sense that it causes them just like everything else. There is also no reason to say that a specific conscious being has created them.

If it means the latter, then the sum total of all physical objects are basically the same as everything, so it's not possible for it to be created by anything.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby jupiviv » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:15 am

cousinbasil wrote:Logically, if God were Infinite and Eternal, what would prevent him from "being able" to create anything, let alone something finite?


Precisely that fact. If God is eternal, then the notion of him creating anything is itself totally invalidated, because it applies only to finite things. So it is meaningless to ask why he would be prevented from creating something.

And @Talking Ass, I'm surprised you didn't post anything on the thread by Tristram Quinn. I was hoping for an Ass special report on the Quinn dynasty's invasion of genius forum, or something.

Who is Tristram Quinn anyway? Any relation to you, David?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Sufi surfing with Diebert and Alex

Postby Tomas » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:30 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You're thinking of the Dervish dancers of the Sufi Mevlevi Order.

A friend and I saw an Order of them way back in the late 70s/early 80s (can't remember exactly when) doing their thing in New York City. The friend regretted some 15 minutes into the first set that "we didn't have some good maryjane" he paused and said "better yet, some orange sunshine" (LSD). I nodded in agreement. All in all was alright but lasted some 5 hours. Alcoholic drinks and tobacco hookahs were permitted so I missed some of the performance due to bathroom needs. Skipped the hookah session because someone there was passing out some good Cuban cigars, at cost. God Bless America, and Fidel, too.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4325
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: On consciousness

Postby cousinbasil » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:42 am

TA wrote:Okay, I am not at all either happy witht the most unfortunate 'porcupine', but I do think you see how language produces its own enevitabilities
... and as long as Larry is Fine with "Porcupine"...
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: On consciousness

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:02 am

Talking Ass wrote:Please, please tell me and us a little more.

But how interesting is it really? It was just always there, the temple with its golden dome (which my father repaired once after a storm) challenging the many dozens protestant churches of nearby towns. Because one of the leading national politicians at the time had turned to Sufi, they managed to buy the land and upstage the Christian locals with what had to look like an affront to them. The temple was build on a high sand dune so in the surrounding flatland it all kind of stood out. The place was considered holy by Sufis because Inayat Khan had a strong experience there in '22. And it's true, there's something there in the land, the sky, the sea. A rare bind. To me, it was a mystery I found myself entering over time.

It's the land of childhood and formation, Alex. All the truths of what I am are there; that tree, some wading bird, that alien dome, those churches, the folks, the river mouth, its purity ending in the salty sea. It was always about integration and the wider picture and for that Sufism is good. It's very intellectual as well but essentially: "Sufis believe the canon, path and truth are mutually interdependent". Learn to unlearn, knowing yourself and the path, all the nature that shaped ones specific being, the drunkenness of life and the stillness of clarity. Those were good lessons to learn. Not the end and not the beginning but it was there waiting all the time.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5026
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On consciousness

Postby David Quinn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:52 am

jupiviv wrote: Who is Tristram Quinn anyway? Any relation to you, David?

He's my boy. I'm not sure that he is quite ready to hold his own in a forum of sages, snakes and vultures like this one, but we shall see.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: On consciousness

Postby David Quinn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:02 am

Liberty Sea wrote: In what sense is the God as defined the Islamics infinite? He has no beginning and end. He is the unmoved mover, as the whole of existence is like a drop of water that cannot move the infinite ocean that is God. He can remove all of existence by his whim. He can remain in his wujub without the need of being in relation with any other beings to verify his wujud.

To say that such a god is finite would be a logical fallacy in your part. The universe is nothing compared to him, in the way he is defined. The universe is his creation and a tiny, insignificant part of him. And it is said in the scripture that if he is to enter his creation, the universe will instantly vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity, as x/∞ = 0. In what sense is he finite?

Such a conception doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. Instead, it represents a superfluous sideways move.

For example, the ocean of God that surrounds the tiny dot of the universe presumably consists of movements or currents of some kind (the whims of God), and these movements and currents can be regarded as "things" (portions of the ALL). So in effect, all the Islamics have done is replace one world of things with another. The key spiritual issue of understanding the fundamental nature of all things is still not being addressed.

So that's two black marks against this Islamic world-view: it is superfluous and triggers infinite regressions.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: On consciousness

Postby David Quinn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:30 am

cousinbasil wrote:
DQ wrote:What about thoughts and emotions? Do they have mass?
They always have an associated mass.

Indeed.


cousinbasil wrote:
DQ wrote:What about thoughts about Allah?
I have asked you more or less this same question and you have yet to reply. Are thoughts in fact things?

They are definitely things. They are portions of the ALL.


cousinbasil wrote: If they are included in Utterly Everything, then they must be subject to cause and effect. Thus every one would have to be a cause and effect. In other words, you cannot have a thought that was not caused. Moreover, every single thought you have must have an effect on something, not necessarily another thought, for that would be a baseless assumption. David, your notion of causality is faulty at the core - you miss the essence of things by eternally returning to cause and effect as if running for cover.

I'm not following you here. I agree that thoughts are caused and have effects, but I don't know how this connects to your last sentence there.


All logic, when extended far enough, seems to have a navel. David, your logic obviously has one, which you have often admitted - you have certainly contemplated your navel. Yours is that a thing can be said to exist because it is in relation to something else, or A=A. But Utterly Everything is the navel in the sense that logic breaks down when trying to use the same definition of existence: again, the Totality neither exists nor does not exist.

The Totality isn't a thing, which is why it neither exists nor not exists. It isn't a thing because there is nothing else for it to relate to. Nothing can give it form.


How do you know logic does not break down everywhere in Reality?

I know because logic is purely abstract and thus unaffected by physical realities. The only way that a logical truth can be proven to be false is when logic, and logic alone, shows it to be faulty.


What if the world were rife with uncaused causes, most of which go unnoticed because they have an ensuing effect, which then becomes cause for another effect, which vanishes without causing anything further.

This is like asking how do we know the world isn't rife with married bachelors and four-sided triangles. We know they don't exist because their existence is logically impossible.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: On consciousness

Postby cousinbasil » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:10 am

cousinbasil: What if the world were rife with uncaused causes, most of which go unnoticed because they have an ensuing effect, which then becomes cause for another effect, which vanishes without causing anything further.
David Quinn: This is like asking how do we know the world isn't rife with married bachelors and four-sided triangles. We know they don't exit because their existence is logically impossible.

According to you.

Forget the uncaused causes for a second. What about causal chains that terminate? What about an effect that never becomes a cause of anything? If ideas are things as you say, then each thought must be both a cause and an effect. What effect does a man's dying thought have?

cousinbasil: David, your notion of causality is faulty at the core - you miss the essence of things by eternally returning to cause and effect as if running for cover.
DQ: I'm not following you here. I agree that thoughts are caused and have effects, but I don't know how this connects to your last sentence there.

See your response above with the four-sided triangles.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: On consciousness

Postby Talking Ass » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:28 am

I just want to take a moment to get something straight with the snakes and vultures who lurk around here looking for innocent victims: we've got a youngun here who's just sharpening his wisdom teeth. Now, I have put up with all sorts of shennanigans, all sorts of serpentine ambushes and mercilless flesh-pickings, but by the non-god who is simply everything, EVERYTHING! if one of yous slithers near expecting to take a bite you'll have to deal with ME!

For once, for bloody once, I am pleading with you to be on your best behavior or prepare yourselves for the consequences.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby David Quinn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:46 am

cousinbasil wrote:
cousinbasil: What if the world were rife with uncaused causes, most of which go unnoticed because they have an ensuing effect, which then becomes cause for another effect, which vanishes without causing anything further.
David Quinn: This is like asking how do we know the world isn't rife with married bachelors and four-sided triangles. We know they don't exit because their existence is logically impossible.

According to you.

Forget the uncaused causes for a second. What about causal chains that terminate? What about an effect that never becomes a cause of anything? If ideas are things as you say, then each thought must be both a cause and an effect. What effect does a man's dying thought have?

Numerous ways. The temperature of the thought heating its immediate surroundings. The chemical interactions that produce the thought continuing to impact on other chemical interactions within the brain. The expression on the dying man's face caused by the thought making an impression on those who observe him. That this particular thought didn't mutate into a giant black hole and swallow the earth also has an effect.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: On consciousness

Postby Liberty Sea » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:53 am

bluerap wrote:Here is where you break off into the same pit that apologetic religious people fall into. Now you're using all kinds of opposing words, like "tiny" and "nothing compared to him." All these words imply some sort of separation. Is God the universe, or is he not? If God is not the "tiny" universe, then God is the universe (i.e. the All) only in a metaphorical sense, balancing it on his fingertips to maintain its existence, so to speak.

It's like saying water only exists because of the gravitational force that holds oxygen and hydrogen molecules together. Water and gravitational forces are both finite parts of the All but do not speak for the All itself.

Well, even if God is separated from the universe, that doesn't prevent from being infinite.
a) Consider the possibility that a part of his consciousness is present in the universe, and even that part is enough to cover the whole universe.
b) Furthermore, before the beginning of universe or any physical existence at all, he was. After the end of the universe, he will still be.
In these states, is he not infinite?
We can have as much definition of what the word 'infinite' implies as we like. But God, let me repeat for the last time, is defined to be infinite for the following reasons:
1. He does not need to be in relation with other beings to verify his wujud. If he removed the whole existence of the universe, he would still remain in his wujud.
2. He has no beginning and no end.
3. His 'force' is infinite, with which he destroys and recreates the universe in every instant and is the unmoved mover.
4. If he enters the universe it will vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity.
If you can refute that, go on. If you can disprove the reality of such a creator, I am all ear.

David Quinn wrote:So that's two black marks against this Islamic world-view: it is superfluous and triggers infinite regressions.

1. But David, if you wish to defend your position as an Atheist, you need to prove with absolute certainty that a Creator as described above doesn't reside in reality.

2. Consider the possibility that one day you were, for some reason, suddenly endowed with the psychic power to foresee the images of future with greatest clarity, namely clairvoyance, and an inner voice that spoke to you as God and claimed to have given you that prophetic vision and chose you to fulfill some 'holy missions' (or whatever game he wanted to play). Then the next events in your life confirm your prophetic visions to be true. In that case, what is the more rational choice: to dismiss in the God that speaks to you as hallucination, or to believe in him? The same for whatever other power that he may grant you.

I want to be an Atheist as much as you, but I must remain neutral objective as I can be.
David Quinn wrote:He's my boy. I'm not sure that he is quite ready to hold his own in a forum of sages, snakes and vultures like this one, but we shall see.

In one of your letter you said that Sue Hindmarsh got pregnant through me. If I am not mistaken, he is about my age?
jupiviv wrote:I don't know what you define physical objects to be.

That which possesses mass.
jupiviv wrote: There is also no reason to say that a specific conscious being has created them.

Yes. But there is no reason to say that they weren't created by a consciousness either.
I am taking in the possibility that the Islamics did not write their scripture out of mere speculation, but prophetic visions endowed by God. As superstitious and fanatical as that sounds, to prove that it is not a possibility is another issue. Examine all that can be examined.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby David Quinn » Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:34 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:
bluerap wrote:Here is where you break off into the same pit that apologetic religious people fall into. Now you're using all kinds of opposing words, like "tiny" and "nothing compared to him." All these words imply some sort of separation. Is God the universe, or is he not? If God is not the "tiny" universe, then God is the universe (i.e. the All) only in a metaphorical sense, balancing it on his fingertips to maintain its existence, so to speak.

It's like saying water only exists because of the gravitational force that holds oxygen and hydrogen molecules together. Water and gravitational forces are both finite parts of the All but do not speak for the All itself.

Well, even if God is separated from the universe, that doesn't prevent from being infinite. Consider the possibility that a part of his consciousness is present in the universe, and even that part is enough to cover the whole universe.
We can have as much definition of what the word 'infinite' implies as we like. But God, let me repeat for the last time, is infinite in this sense:
1. He does not need to be in relation with other beings to verify his wujud. If he destroyed the universe, he would still remain in his wujud.
2. He has no beginning and no end.
3. If he enters the universe it will vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity.
4. His 'force' is infinite, with which he destroys and recreates the universe in every instant.
If you can refute that, go on.

If this God was truly infinite, then the word "universe" becomes redundant. At best, it becomes an arbitrarily-defined portion of God. So again, we are back at the idea that the ALL is composed of (arbitrarily-defined) things. In a fundamental sense, nothing is accomplished with this particular depicition of God.


Liberty Sea wrote:
David Quinn wrote:So that's two black marks against this Islamic world-view: it is superfluous and triggers infinite regressions.

1. But David, if you wish to defend your position as an Atheist, you need to prove with absolute certainty that a Creator as described above doesn't reside in reality.

If the Creator is the ALL, then he can't reside anywhere or in anything.


Liberty Sea wrote:2. Consider the possibility that you were, for some reason, endowed with power to see the images of future, namely clairvoyance, and an inner voice that spoke to you as God and claimed to have given you that prophetic vision and chose you to fulfill some 'holy missions' (or whatever game he wanted to play). Then the next events in your life confirm your prophetic visions to be true. In that case, what is the more rational choice: to dismiss in the God that speaks to you as hallucination, or to believe in him? The same for whatever other power that he may grant you.

Well, it wouldn't have the faintest impact on my understanding of God, as I already fully understand the fundamental nature of God/the ALL. So if the scenario above came to pass, my natural response would be to consider this communicative being as some kind of human trick, or possibly an alien from another planet or dimension - or in other words, as just another form within the ALL, which is all it can ever be.


Liberty Sea wrote:
David Quinn wrote:He's my boy. I'm not sure that he is quite ready to hold his own in a forum of sages, snakes and vultures like this one, but we shall see.

In one of your letter you said that Sue Hindmarsh got pregnant through me. If I am not mistaken, he is about my age?

He's 20. Development-wise, he is still exploring everything. Much like you, I suspect.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: On consciousness

Postby Russell » Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:42 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:Well, even if God is separated from the universe, that doesn't prevent from being infinite.
a) Consider the possibility that a part of his consciousness is present in the universe, and even that part is enough to cover the whole universe.
b) Furthermore, before the beginning of universe or any physical existence at all, he was. After the end of the universe, he will still be.
In these states, is he not infinite?
We can have as much definition of what the word 'infinite' implies as we like. But God, let me repeat for the last time, is defined to be infinite for the following reasons:
1. He does not need to be in relation with other beings to verify his wujud. If he removed the whole existence of the universe, he would still remain in his wujud.
2. He has no beginning and no end.
3. His 'force' is infinite, with which he destroys and recreates the universe in every instant and is the unmoved mover.
4. If he enters the universe it will vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity.
So God is infinite, but only in a finite number of ways?
If you can refute that, go on. If you can disprove the reality of such a creator, I am all ear.
But David, if you wish to defend your position as an Atheist, you need to prove with absolute certainty that a Creator as described above doesn't reside in reality.
Such a mundane understanding of atheism you have there!

Atheism isn't the belief that there is no God, it is just the absence of the belief that there is a God (of course, here I am referring to the traditional God that most people believe in). Have you heard of NonStampCollector on youtube? Here's a treat - http://youtu.be/sGT25Oj-6rc
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Liberty Sea » Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:53 pm

David Quinn wrote:If the Creator is the ALL, then he can't reside anywhere or in anything.

By 'residing in reality', I mean "has actual Being and not simply imaginary'.
So what if the Creator of the universe is not the All but still possessed consciousness?
Or, consider this: when there is the universe, this consciousness is not the All. But when the universe is gone, he would be the All. Or before the universe-as is, the total mass- was created by him, he was the All.

David Quinn wrote:Well, it wouldn't have the faintest impact on my understanding of God, as I already fully understand the fundamental nature of God/the ALL. So if the scenario above came to pass, my natural response would be to consider this communicative being as some kind of human trick, or possibly an alien from another planet or dimension - or in other words, as just an other form within the ALL, which is all it can ever be.

1.But even if that Being is within the All, what if he was truly the creator of Earth, who created all mass and all lives out of nothingness with the power of his consciousness?
2. What if that Being truly has power over your destiny?
3. What if that Being has infinite force that can destroy the total mass in the universe in an instant?
David Quinn wrote:He's 20. Development-wise, he is still exploring everything. Much like you, I suspect.

Yes, I am a 20 years old skeptical inquirer. Of everything.

bluerap wrote:So God is infinite, but only in a finite number of ways?

He is still infinite.
bluerap wrote:Such a mundane understanding of atheism you have there!

Atheism isn't the belief that there is no God, it is just the absence of the belief that there is a God (of course, here I am referring to the traditional God that most people believe in). Have you heard of NonStampCollector on youtube? Here's a treat

Depends on what Atheism. There are Absolute Atheism (or Gnostic Atheism), Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism( or Agnostic Atheism). What you mentioned is Weak Atheism while the Atheist Society of Australia claimed to have "knowledge of the nonexistence of God and an uncompromising rejection of all concepts of God, be they metaphysical or socio-political in nature. Members of this society do not adopt a non-committal, agnostic viewpoint and are therefore openly anti-religious."
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:11 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby Kunga » Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:56 pm

Definitions of God:

At Genius Forums : God is Absolute Reality/The Totality Not a Creator God.
Christian God: A Creator God
Buddhism : No Creator God , But there are "gods" [Brahma] & some other ones, whom are only gods because of their great karma,
but they are not omnipresent/omnieicent, their good karma gets depleted after eons, and they return again to the lower realms.
they think of themselves as omniescent/omnepresent because of their incredibly long lives.....
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Liberty Sea » Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:01 pm

Kunga wrote:Definitions of God:

At Genius Forums : God is Absolute Reality/The Totality Not a Creator God.

But they have issue with worshiping or believing in a creator God whether this creator God is a reality.
I am no worshiper. But I am, for now at least, interested in knowing whether a creator God is. Otherwise I am hardly qualified as a Truth-seeker.
I believe in nothing. Not even Atheism or Agnosticism or Skepticism. Nor do I disbelieve in anything. Not even Theism or Solipsism or Idealism. If I know, I know and I know that I know. If I don't know, I don't know and I know that I don't know. No place for belief nor disbelief.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby Kunga » Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:16 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:I believe in nothing.


How about evolution ? Did humans evolve ? Did life evolve ? Did the universe just evolve ? Causes & conditions , without a creator ?
From this nothing, came everything ?

What is that nothing that you belive in ?
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On consciousness

Postby Liberty Sea » Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:19 pm

Kunga wrote:What is that nothing that you belive in ?

Funny.
I don't believe in nothingness.
I don't have the mood to be funny now. So let me ruin the fun and spell it out again that it just means I have no belief or disbelief whatsoever.
User avatar
Liberty Sea
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: On consciousness

Postby Russell » Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:20 pm

Liberty Sea wrote:
Kunga wrote:Definitions of God:

At Genius Forums : God is Absolute Reality/The Totality Not a Creator God.

But they have issue with worshiping or believing in a creator God whether this creator God is a reality.
I am no worshiper. But I am, for now at least, interested in knowing whether a creator God is. Otherwise I am hardly qualified as a Truth-seeker.

Can't you see the irrelevance of a creator God in regards to the All?

What is the one thing that trumps any finite God? Creation itself. Even "creator God" got his creative abilities from somewhere.
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests