Agnostic finds God...

Cyperium said:
Who said consciousness exists after death?
Click to expand...

Little_Birdie: "i'd go as far as to say the existance of anything is proof that something lies beyond thei mortal coil"

Cyperium said:
That you *exist* after death may be, in some way, but that the *existance* is what we know as consciousness is not something to be sure about.
Click to expand...

I'll have to ask you to paraphrase that as I didn't understand it.

Cyperium said:
Maybe it's that you somehow become (or you allready are) a piece of existance yourself, thus there is no "you" but only existance itself, where "you" is the perceiver of that existance and where "you" are existance (thus a piece of existance that is the perceiver of existance).
Click to expand...

The evidence we've uncovered of the universe says this is likely true. Humans aren't some seperate entity in reality. They are part of it. When I wave my arms around, I am reality-rendered information changing position. The interesting implication of being a part of reality is that reality may be predisposed towards self-awareness. After all, we are points of consciousness.
 
Little_Birdie said:
my evidence in support of theism is the good in mankind, makind even, i'd go as far as to say the existance of anything is proof that something lies beyond thei mortal coil
Click to expand...

It would appear that the only evidence in mankind and nature is nature itself. Indications of something beyond have not been found.

Please share exactly the evidence you support which we fail to see?
 
Cyperium said:
Maybe it's that you somehow become (or you allready are) a piece of existance yourself, thus there is no "you" but only existance itself, where "you" is the perceiver of that existance and where "you" are existance (thus a piece of existance that is the perceiver of existance).
Click to expand...
if you are talking about an oversoul i'm not too keep on the idea but i respect it as a belif
 
(Q) said:
It would appear that the only evidence in mankind and nature is nature itself. Indications of something beyond have not been found.

Please share exactly the evidence you support which we fail to see?
Click to expand...
you see it as well as i do you just don't reconize it the site of anything, true, honerable, right, pure, lovely,or of good repute, is proof to a beliver
 
Little_Birdie said:
if you are talking about an oversoul i'm not too keep on the idea but i respect it as a belif
Click to expand...
Well, that was just an idea of what I feel, but the idea could be different, still the feeling is the same.

Maybe we just can't explain it in wordly terms...
 
one_raven said:
He crept through the Deep South many years ago and convinced people that they were justified in lynching human beings based on the color of their skin.
He pulled people together at home to gather their efforts and cooperate while their sons and husbands were off fighting World War II.
He made Michael Jackson a star.
He made Michael Jackson a pitiful laughing stock.
Click to expand...
men have no free will then,we are just puppets in His game, ;)
how do those invisible strings on your arms and legs feel?
 
spidergoat said:
Then there was no interaction with the universe until mankind appeared?
Click to expand...

his own desgn he knew every posiblility and spun every sub atomic particle in the begining so as to get things to where they are today, its not that he had no control he just set the "program" to work with all the nessicary imformation and materials
 
Last edited:
He is Volition, Driven.
He is Desire, Realized.
He is Will, Rendered.
He is Word, Incarnate.
He is Intention, Revealed.
He is Karma, Manifest.


c7ityi_ said:
god means creator, right?
Click to expand...
No... Actually it doesn't.

c7ityi_ said:
did your god create the universe?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
The God I was referring to is one who is the incarnation of mankind's volition, desire, will. words and intention.
Now, of course, you can take this concept further back to the deeper level of the Vedic akasha and prana if you wish, and call God the fundamental force.

c7ityi_ said:
how can something immaterial interract with something material?
Click to expand...
spidergoat said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...
Do you not understand what I wrote, do you not agree with it or have you simply not it?
If you don't understand, please ask questions.
If you don't agree, please elaborate.
If you didn't read it, please stop wasting my time.

Which of: volition, desire, will. words or intention are material?
Do they not interract with the material?

Why do people buy Mercedes? Because of Mercedes reputation and because of their own reputation. Is reputation material?

What was the impetus for Michelangelo sculpting David? He had an idea, he had the talent, he had the will and he had the drive. Which of these is material? What resulted from them? Carved stone - the material.

Karma is not materail, yet it influences us every moment of every day.
Every experience you have ever had has helped to shape your ideas, ideals and self, and each of those interractions has, in turn, been the continuation in an infinite chain of events that will impacts millions of other people.
None of this is material.
All if this is has a significant effect on the material.


scorpius said:
men have no free will then,we are just puppets in His game, ;)
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more.
While we have countless influences in our lives pushing and pulling us, at the ends of ti all we have to decide if were are going to make a left or right on Maple Street.
You may influence someone to take drugs, but ultimately, whether or not they pick up the crack pipe, and whether or not they put it down is up to them.

scorpius said:
how do those invisible strings on your arms and legs feel?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know.
You're the one who is convinced we have no free will, you tell me.
 
Last edited:
Anthropomorphization!

Everything (x) = he?

Where x is whatever it is exactly that you're trying to get at.
 
wesmorris said:
Anthropomorphization!

Everything (x) = he?

Where x is whatever it is exactly that you're trying to get at.
Click to expand...

No.
As I said to Ophiolite's earlier comment:
Ophiolite said:
Pantheism.
Click to expand...

one_raven said:
No, not quite.

God is not everything.
He is Karma, which is nothing material at all.
He is not this computer, but what I am communicating on it.
He is not that rock, but the results of my action of throwing it, and partially the cause.
He is not my thoughts, but the results of my thoughts, and partially the impetus behind them.
He interracts with matter, but he isn't matter.
Click to expand...
 
c7ityi_ said:
how can something immaterial interract with something material?
Click to expand...

What we think of as immaterial and material, are not separate, but directly inter-related. The universe is generally thought of as purely material. I think that what is material falls short of including that which is abstract, yet that which is abstract exists. IF it does indeed exist, it is part of our universe. As such, the material and immaterial are both part of the same thing and as such.. interact as they must according to the properties of that thing (the universe)
 
one_raven said:
No.
As I said to Ophiolite's earlier comment:
Click to expand...

I read and understood that, trying to compensate for the difference in my objection with x. Perhaps not quite clearly. Everything(x) was intended to represent whatever subset of everything you're talking about. My notation is shit I think.

But regardless..

Yes, because you are using the term "he" regarding something that is not a person. That is anthropomorphization.

You are anthropomorphizing an aspect of nature, labelling it god and referencing it as a person.
 
wesmorris said:
Yes, because you are using the term "he" regarding something that is not a person. That is anthropomorphization.

You are anthropomorphizing an aspect of nature, labelling it god and referencing it as a person.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, and of course I am.


wesmorris said:
I read and understood that, trying to compensate for the difference in my objection with x. Perhaps not quite clearly. Everything(x) was intended to represent whatever subset of everything you're talking about. My notation is shit I think.
Click to expand...
This, however, I still don't get.
 
Excuse me for my confusion regarding the "Anthropomorphization!" comment.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I got the impression that it was some sort of revelation or accusation that I was supposed to defend mysef from.
Like Toto just ran up and pulled the sheet off the Wizard.

I thought it was palinly obvious that I was intentionally and blatantly using the tactic to get the point across clearly.
Maybe I was mistaken.

Have you read Æsop's fables?
When you do, do you say, "Frogs can't talk, damnit, this is obviously all bullshit."?
I hope not, because if you do, I am afraid you are missing out on a lot.

I still don't understand what you meant by the everthing(x) or whatever it was.
Can you please break it down in english, rather than Mathematics?

literal people are scary, man
literal people scare me
out there trying to rid the world
of its poetry
while getting it wrong fundamentally
down at the church of "look,
it sez right here, see!"
Literal - ani difranco
 
one_raven said:
Of course it is, and of course I am.
Click to expand...

Okay then. That was all I was saying. I was trying to say the same thing in shorter notation that as I mentioned, I now think was shit.

So long as you know what you're doing. :)

I thought it was palinly obvious that I was intentionally and blatantly using the tactic to get the point across clearly.
Click to expand...

What exactly then, is the point?

You think "god" is "kharma manifest"?

Is that it? Is there something else I've missed?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top