If you prefer, we can refer to God as She. The gender pronouns really have no importance to him or me.Not me.
Why "he"?
If you prefer, we can refer to God as She. The gender pronouns really have no importance to him or me.Not me.
Why "he"?
If I tell you I see God in a pile of bricks, that's my perception. What do you believe...see?Exactly. Which is why it makes a poor topic of conversation.
Personal beliefs are not defensible - nor should they need to be.
"I believe in God."
"I see. I do not."
"Have a good day."
"You too."
Why must it be the negative? Are you happier in a lifeless universe?Or perhaps he simply is not. Same evidence for both premises - and Occam's Razor says the latter is the more likely explanation.
Does anything have inherent meaning that isn't implied by the mind? Perhaps its only real purpose is just being. There is beauty in the clouds above, but do they have meaning?Or not, how would you even tell the difference?
Because the natural world exists. And it's full of life. What's negative about that?Why must it be the negative? Are you happier in a lifeless universe?
If there is no God, then there is no meaning, but you seem fine with things just being, so why do you need to invent God? Why gild the lily?Does anything have inherent meaning that isn't implied by the mind? Perhaps its only real purpose is just being. There is beauty in the clouds above, but do they have meaning?
It does not have to be the negative. There is simply no evidence that it is the positive.Why must it be the negative? Are you happier in a lifeless universe?
So, it's foolish to believe in God? Is there a pitfall in such belief?However (and this is important) - only a fool decides on what's true and what's not based on what makes him feel happier.
Why not recognize God? There's no need to invent.If there is no God, then there is no meaning, but you seem fine with things just being, so why do you need to invent God? Why gild the lily?
So, it's foolish to believe in God? Is there a pitfall in such belief?
Why not recognize unicorns? Why not recognize fairies? Because there's no consensus that they exist or if they do, what they are like.Why not recognize God?
Foolish? Depends upon your belief, of course. You could believe in a definition of god that is the combined potential of every human on the planet; that's not that foolish IMO. You could believe in a vengeful, anthropomorphic god who wants you to go forth and kill homosexuals/infidels/heretics - that, IMO, is a foolish belief.So, it's foolish to believe in God? Is there a pitfall in such belief?
I actually prefer "it". I see no evidence of any gender.If you prefer, we can refer to God as She. The gender pronouns really have no importance to him or me.
Hang on. Perception? Are you seeing things? Or believing things?If I tell you I see God in a pile of bricks, that's my perception.
I see a pile of inventions by a clever and curious primate.What do you believe...see?
We are told by religious types that we each have a soul. Some believe, in addition, that our souls are recycled through multiple reincarnations.
I have a question.
Is the number of souls that are in existence fixed?
The human population of the world is steadily increasing, so that the Earth now has 7 billion people. But in the past there were far fewer people. So, my question is: where did all the extra souls come from? As the population continues to increase, are new souls being created all the time? Or is there a store of spare souls somewhere, ready to be put into new bodies?
Once again, I thank the theists in advance for your help on this question.
I wouldn't say that Jains are the one's who preserve it in original form. They simply advocate a particular means. Others advocate different means because it is technically impossible to refrain from killing other living entities in the course of activity, no matter how careful you are. Material life is built on the principle of himsa, so as long as the material body exists, the clock of engagement in new karmas continues to tick over. Actually Jainism's development arose out of more reactionary circumstances against orthodoxy as opposed to a perceived need to preserve orthodoxy.I haven't read all of this thread (cruel and unusual punishment), so maybe somebody has already said this...
But the question that you ask came up in ancient Indian philosophy.
The traditional answer from that source is that many different planes of existence exist, ranging from various form and formless heavens up "above", down to a variety of hells "below". (Our Earth falls somewhere in the middle.) They also imagined a plurality of world-systems, each with its heavens and hells. All of this is teeming with beings that presumably have souls. Their view was that all sentient beings have selves/souls which correspond to the subject side of the subject/object distinction. (The mysterious thing that looks out through your eyes and experiences everything while never being experienced itself.) The sentient beings here on Earth needn't be human either, it was assumed that animals have souls, even insects.
Since they believed in reincarnation, karma and an infinite chain of births and rebirths, they believed that hell beings can rise up out of hell if they reform, and that gods can tumble down out of heaven if they get too caught up in their own egos as gods are prone to do (just think 'Yahweh'). Everything is constantly moving up and down, according to their karmic actions. We can be reborn as animals and animals can be reborn as us. Souls are eternal but weren't always on this Earth and if they were here, they weren't always human. (So unlike some religions, they would have no trouble with space-aliens.)
The Jains are probably the ones who preserve these ancient theories in closest to original form, but we see indications of it in many of the early Hindu and Buddhist writings too.
That's why Jain monastics take such care to avoid killing little beings in the air they breathe or on the ground they step on. Some of them wear masks to avoid the former and brooms to sweep unfortunate little six-legged souls from their path. Since they believe that they have already had an endless chain of rebirths, they believe that they have already experienced living like that, so developing compassion for all sentient beings (ahimsa).
I'm not seeing anything except nature.Why not recognize God? There's no need to invent.
Spide already beat me to it.Why not recognize God? There's no need to invent.
Spide already beat me to it.
"Recognizing" things without good reason to leads to madness.
What if the next guy that comes along wants you to "recognize" The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Will you just do so because someone else is convinced?
DaveC426913 quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Today at 3:31 AM
spidergoat quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Today at 3:16 AM
DaveC426913 quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Today at 12:05 AM
gmilam quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Yesterday at 11:22 PM
billvon quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Yesterday at 8:55 PM
sideshowbob quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Yesterday at 8:26 PM
Michael 345 quoted your post in the thread Conservation of souls?.
Yesterday at 7:59 PM
The one thing to keep in mind is that we do not control life