spidergoat,can i pick on you a sec?

[Randwolf]

god wanted us to...

I believe you just stated that he knew we would. Therefore, why not just dispense with all the rigmarole and grant us knowledge of good and evil aa priori?

Much simpler, don't you think?

 

[Big Chiller]

Personality is something we don't find as yet anywhere else in the universe. It seems to be the product of complexity. Complexity is not apparent at the beginning of the universe, but it can be the product of evolutionary processes.

God can surely be devoid of a personality but how else can He be referred to within the limitations of the human mind?

 

[NMSquirrel]

I believe you just stated that he knew we would. Therefore, why not just dispense with all the rigmarole and grant us knowledge of good and evil aa priori?

Much simpler, don't you think?

your still missing the point about us being able to choose..
i dunno how else to put it..

 

[spidergoat]

God can surely be devoid of a personality but how else can He be referred to within the limitations of the human mind?

No he can't be devoid of personality, that is His defining feature, otherwise it would be like electromagnetism or something.

 

[Big Chiller]

How do you know? He's probably not even something as specific as electromagnetism. Actually how about that He doesn't even resemble matter, energy, space or time?

 

[Randwolf]

your still missing the point about us being able to choose..
i dunno how else to put it..

Wouldn't we be better off having knowledge of good and evil in order to choose? I dunno how else to ask?

 

[wynn]

I expect any reasonable theory to be falsifiable.

Then there is no universal use to it.

What is the point of purusing avenues of limited knowledge?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not reasonable to assume there is such a thing as an omnipotent/infinite version of the thing we know to exist only in finite beings.

Unless of course one happens to know that the finite limitations of one's self is merely the body, which is an incessant vehicle of change that (temporarily) houses but one constant article - the self as context. In such a case the tables are turned on what its reasonable to assume.

(BTW in short you are right - there is no scope for understanding much of anything spiritual for as long as one is convinced that the final last word about one's self is one's corporeal body)

I have yet to perform a DNA test, but I resemble my parents, and I share some of their non-visual genetic traits. I have not proven that my mother was really mine, but there is enough evidence of other kinds to make it unreasonable to assume they are lying.

yet to perform a dna test?
You mean its on the cards?


As for your other so called evidence, its merely anecdotal. If you don't have a dna test, you are certainly not in a position to start talking about inherited non-visual genetic traits .... although if you want to start talking about visual ones, that's also a slippery slope.

or even

You have already assumed the existence of a deity, something for which you do not have reliable evidence. That isn't reasonable.

as pointed out before, if you think the only reliable evidence that can be gained is whatever one can muster through one's current powers of falsifiability, its not reasonable to expect such a person to approach issues that contextualize their existence.

As such, you can talk about what is reasonable for you, given your current fund of knowledge or preferred methods for proceeding with investigation .... but to extrapolate your reasoning to others is to assume that what you know and the way you proceed to know more is faultless

Personality is something we don't find as yet anywhere else in the universe. It seems to be the product of complexity. Complexity is not apparent at the beginning of the universe, but it can be the product of evolutionary processes.

To say the least, your claims about the origins/production of personality or the universe are not falsifiable

 

[wynn]

I was talking about me, or something to that effect, an attempt at humor or to provoke thought, but you are right, it's a common argument against God. It's the problem of evil. It's not just the problem of taking charge of your life, there are really evil things that happen and no one can stop them, no one knows about them at the time. The notion that God will always provide for the faithful, if they only took advantage of some opportunity is, I feel, nonsense.

The problem of evil has been addressed by many religions.

All one has to do is read up on them or speak to knowledgeable theologians.

 

[heart]

i think you misread my comment..the test was not for god but for us..

So you are saying he desired them to fail- but there were big consequences because they did.

Job pretty much had a "test" too- all it was in the end was an ego stroke for God, really to toy with other peoples lives like that-is total bs.

we needed to realize that we are capable of making our own decisions,

I'm thinking that a choice between plain and peanut M&M's would have been a good way for them to discover they could make their own decisions. Not set them up and make them suffer consequences because they went against something he wanted them to do to begin with (according to you).

he knew what we would do..and your comment assumes a pass/fail mode of testing it assume because we disobeyed and ate the apple equals failure..but i say we disobeyed and passed the test..god wanted us to.

Well, that's a nice thought, but really we are talking about the Biblical God. The one who gets pissed off at some dude (Uzziah) for not obeying his orders (handling the Ark according to his instructions/commands). So Uzziah's intent was to try to save the Biblical God's Ark from smashing to the ground in a million pieces, he reacted by trying to catch it. What happened to Uzziah because he touched the Ark and went against God's command? It said God was angered and he killed Uzziah, right there because he disobeyed.

Also, like I stated in the first response, there were major consequences because Adam and Eve disobeyed. Why when he desired them to do so to begin with? Kind of like a parent trying to teach a child that drugs are bad for them. How do they do this? Well, on a table the parent sets out all kinds of plates. The plates are filled with cookies and candy. However, the plate in the center has a strawberry flavored powder which is really crystal meth. The parent tells their child they can eat from any plate but the one in the center. So the parent leaves the child unattended. I guess my point is don't you think there could be a better way to teach a child not to do drugs risking that the child will eat the strawberry crystal meth and suffer whatever consequences there will be? Seriously?

there is that catholic retoric again...are you saying that is the ONLY way to think about it?

I'm saying that is a very important part in the Bible that for some reason Christians overlook and make excuses for God's violent behavior. Why follow, trust and dedicate your very life to a God like that?

 

[spidergoat]

The problem of evil has been addressed by many religions.

All one has to do is read up on them or speak to knowledgeable theologians.

And never adequately solved in my opinion.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know? He's probably not even something as specific as electromagnetism. Actually how about that He doesn't even resemble matter, energy, space or time?

If he isn't any of those things, then you have no way of knowing. Nothing that doesn't have those qualities exists. Your speculation is merely that, a fantasy. Meanwhile, theories about the origins of mankind and the universe continue to accumulate supporting reliable evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Then there is no universal use to it.

What is the point of purusing avenues of limited knowledge?

Only reliable, objective knowledge has a universal use, otherwise it is subjective, for personal consumption only.

 

[spidergoat]

Unless of course one happens to know that the finite limitations of one's self is merely the body, which is an incessant vehicle of change that (temporarily) houses but one constant article - the self as context. In such a case the tables are turned on what its reasonable to assume.

The body generates the illusion, the behavior pattern we call self. This is proven by observing the victims of brain damage, and by the fact that death is permanent. No such structure as the brain could even theoretically exist in the early universe, when most elements didn't even exist yet.

Much of the subjective sense of self is an illusion generated by the context of culture. I'm surprised that you, lightgigantic, of all people, influenced by Vedic culture, would not recognize this. Enlightenment is the recognition and subsequent dissolution of this illusion. The body itself has no boundries, it is the body that is infinite, one with the whole.

(BTW in short you are right - there is no scope for understanding much of anything spiritual for as long as one is convinced that the final last word about one's self is one's corporeal body)

Spiritual understanding means to cut through the lies of culture, to realize that the living material world is immortal, and it is the self that dies. Buddha's experience can be understood (but not proven) as literally death of the self in his lifetime.

As for your other so called evidence, its merely anecdotal. If you don't have a dna test, you are certainly not in a position to start talking about inherited non-visual genetic traits .... although if you want to start talking about visual ones, that's also a slippery slope.

On the contrary, it's all valid data that supports the hypothesis. Visual similarities between unrelated people are not relevant. But if Tina Fey grew up in the same household as Sarah Palin, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that they are sisters. If they were both ADD or lactose intolerant, that would be supporting evidence of their relatedness.

as pointed out before, if you think the only reliable evidence that can be gained is whatever one can muster through one's current powers of falsifiability, its not reasonable to expect such a person to approach issues that contextualize their existence.

What you call context is a culture, a collection of unreliable subjective anecdotes meant to support ideas that are personally appealing. In the most negative sense, it is brainwashing. In the most positive, it is a nice story that provides comfort to the very young and very old in times of crisis.

As such, you can talk about what is reasonable for you, given your current fund of knowledge or preferred methods for proceeding with investigation .... but to extrapolate your reasoning to others is to assume that what you know and the way you proceed to know more is faultless

The scientific method has a track record of working, leading to greater practical knowledge of the universe than any other method. As evidence, I give you the machine on which you are writing your posts, achieved through an understanding of electricity. What perspective did religion have on electricity? They said lightning was God's punishment for disobeying the rules of the tribe.

To say the least, your claims about the origins/production of personality or the universe are not falsifiable

Find me a complex structure than can theoretically exist at the temperature of the early universe, and it would be falsified.

 

[wynn]

Only reliable, objective knowledge has a universal use, otherwise it is subjective, for personal consumption only.

Reliable, objective knowledge cannot be falsified, per definition so.


Either give up your criterium of falsibility, or the desire for objective knowledge.

 

[wynn]

And never adequately solved in my opinion.

I think you have not studied enough religions then.

I think it is possible even in the absence of knowing actual religious philosophies to come up with a theoretical theistic model in which the problem of evil does not exist.

Central to this model is that there is an entity which is the supreme controller and there are entities subordinate to him, while both have free will and are by their nature eternal and happy.
In such a model, the problem of evil does not exist, as any suffering that the subordinate entities may have is contextualized by the understanding that this is due to their attempt to usurp the position of supreme control - which they can attempt, because they have free will, and which attempt is not eternal, because they are happy by nature.

The problem of evil can only exist if the supreme controller and the subordinate entities have inherently different natures, specifically if they have fundamentally irreconcilable notions of what is good and right. But in such a case, the supreme controller is not actually the supreme controller (ie. is not the progenitor or source of the subordinate entities), so we cannot talk about a theistic model to begin with.

 

[lightgigantic]

The body generates the illusion, the behavior pattern we call self. This is proven by observing the victims of brain damage, and by the fact that death is permanent.

the body generates the conceived self, not the self as context.
The fact that people can sometimes recover from brain damage proves this.

No such structure as the brain could even theoretically exist in the early universe, when most elements didn't even exist yet.

as mentioned before, your ideas about the universe are not falsifiable, what to speak of your ideas of personhood. This is because in both instances they are phenomena that contextualizes the entire gamut of the working field of empiricism

Much of the subjective sense of self is an illusion generated by the context of culture. I'm surprised that you, lightgigantic, of all people, influenced by Vedic culture, would not recognize this. Enlightenment is the recognition and subsequent dissolution of this illusion. The body itself has no boundries, it is the body that is infinite, one with the whole.

The body is certainly not infinite. The act of it being a receptacle for selfhood establishes clear boundaries. The illusion is simply one's identification with it "ie - I am this body and things in relation to it (relatives, possessions, etc) are mine"

Spiritual understanding means to cut through the lies of culture, to realize that the living material world is immortal, and it is the self that dies. Buddha's experience can be understood (but not proven) as literally death of the self in his lifetime.

From the vantage point of other disciplines, the path of impersonalism (which incorporates such disciplines as Buddhism) simply focuses on the illusory foundation of material existence. IOW it affirms that "I am not this, I am not that. So it knows what one isn't, but doesn't approach what one is. This path accommodates those who have severe reservations about not only their own personhood, but also the prospect of existing under the framework of a greater one (ie god). Kind of like a person that owns a house that is getting severely taxed by the government so they decide to burn it down to avoid all the problem. IOW they don't have the necessary information to utilize the self as functioning asset, so they are left with a picture of the self as a source of pain and illusion.
The purposes god has in establishing such a path is to disempower materialistic persons from causing havoc by gradually introducing society to religious principles (its for this purpose that Buddha is glorified as a lila avatar in the vedas ... priming society for other personalities who subsequently refine religious principles to a more complete model).
Even today buddhism benefits atheists.

On the contrary, it's all valid data that supports the hypothesis. Visual similarities between unrelated people are not relevant. But if Tina Fey grew up in the same household as Sarah Palin, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that they are sisters. If they were both ADD or lactose intolerant, that would be supporting evidence of their relatedness.

If visual similarities exist between unrelated people or they have similar medical issues, it certainly is relevant. The act of your appearance in a certain household is precisely the issue under question. Such issues are resolved with dna tests, not anecdotal claims ..... at least for a person who insists that all reasonable claims be falsifiable.

What you call context is a culture, a collection of unreliable subjective anecdotes meant to support ideas that are personally appealing. In the most negative sense, it is brainwashing. In the most positive, it is a nice story that provides comfort to the very young and very old in times of crisis.

actually its not culture.
Its context.

I am talking about the act of making an appearance in the universe with senses that are limited.

IOW you are not in a position to make falsifiable claims about consciousness or the universe, since these very things preclude your existence.

Basically the empirical model becomes weaker the more one moves into issues beyond the tacit relationships of the articles under sensory investigation.

What to speak of me pointing out flaws in your understanding of the universe and the self, the very disciplines you herald as authoritative on the matter will correct you in 20 or so years

The scientific method has a track record of working, leading to greater practical knowledge of the universe than any other method. As evidence, I give you the machine on which you are writing your posts, achieved through an understanding of electricity. What perspective did religion have on electricity? They said lightning was God's punishment for disobeying the rules of the tribe.

I don't follow.
Empiricism works fine for developing tacit relationships between the observable.
Introduce some element outside of it (like say, things that contextualize our existence or things that exist outside the current metonymic slice of things) and its nowhere.

I mean what to speak of understanding the universe, one cannot even understand a cup of flour with the scientific method (although one can use it in tacit relationships to make a cake or something)

Find me a complex structure than can theoretically exist at the temperature of the early universe, and it would be falsified.

To follow this line of thought I assume we have to accept that your ideas about complex structure, our abilities to observe them, the state of the early universe and how it was populated are all valid?

I mean you are certainly bringing a few premises to the table. Before you can talk of falsification working through these premises, you have to existentially qualify them (which is a task remarkably distinct from say hardware production ... so empiricism will have a hard time cutting the mustard)

 

[NMSquirrel]

So you are saying he desired them to fail- but there were big consequences because they did.

your assumeing its a pass/fail test..

Job pretty much had a "test" too- all it was in the end was an ego stroke for God, really to toy with other peoples lives like that-is total bs.

he did get back 5 times what he lost..(does that mean he has five wives?lol)

I'm thinking that a choice between plain and peanut M&M's would have been a good way for them to discover they could make their own decisions. Not set them up and make them suffer consequences because they went against something he wanted them to do to begin with (according to you).

consequences?..are you saying you would rather be living in the garden of eden instead of living in the current word?( i forget..are you atheist or theist?)
i often wonder what it would be like to live there..all my needs taken care of..
what happens to a person if that happens? i think in our current state of being we would get pretty lethargic..

Well, that's a nice thought, but really we are talking about the Biblical God. The one who gets pissed off at some dude (Uzziah) for not obeying his orders (handling the Ark according to his instructions/commands). So Uzziah's intent was to try to save the Biblical God's Ark from smashing to the ground in a million pieces, he reacted by trying to catch it. What happened to Uzziah because he touched the Ark and went against God's command? It said God was angered and he killed Uzziah, right there because he disobeyed.

they also thought when thunder struck god was angry..

it is my opinion that the bible was written by man..some of those authors may have been inspired by god..but they are still human and are just as susceptable to their own humanity... god did not write the bible..he influenced the ppl who wrote..more ppl got together and decided to gather
these writings together and call it the bible..
you can see by the forum talk about god,that communicating what god is, is difficult at best. of course there are gonna be debates about what is true and what is not in the bible..just like there is today..but he is in there,a person has just got to sort through all the bs as you say..

Also, like I stated in the first response, there were major consequences because Adam and Eve disobeyed.

depends on your point of view..the only analogy i can think of is getting your teenager out on his/her own..the hard ones that don't want to leave the comfort of being provided for..(see lethargic)

Why when he desired them to do so to begin with?

you asking me what god desires? i can only guess..

Kind of like a parent trying to teach a child that drugs are bad for them. How do they do this? Well, on a table the parent sets out all kinds of plates. The plates are filled with cookies and candy. However, the plate in the center has a strawberry flavored powder which is really crystal meth. The parent tells their child they can eat from any plate but the one in the center. So the parent leaves the child unattended. I guess my point is don't you think there could be a better way to teach a child not to do drugs risking that the child will eat the strawberry crystal meth and suffer whatever consequences there will be? Seriously?

i think your stretching a bit..the apple was not bad for them.
but again your saying the consequence of adam and eve eating the apple is a bad thing..

I'm saying that is a very important part in the Bible that for some reason Christians overlook and make excuses for God's violent behavior. Why follow, trust and dedicate your very life to a God like that?

i think its a combination of things that make up the stories of gods violence.
i also believe the differance between old and new testament is akin to our child years and our adult years..as a child we have others to set rules and teach us consequences, as adults we choose to accept the rules of others or we make up our own rules..(the latter tends to get in more trouble..lol)

this is why i tend to agree with my pastor when he talks about new and old covenants..(new testament overrules old testament)

also would the death of jesus have meant anything if the old testament god was different?
also why does my spell checker say i misspelled jesus?...lol

im also saying don't be so quick to throw god out just cause humans screw it up..

 

[Big Chiller]

If he isn't any of those things, then you have no way of knowing. Nothing that doesn't have those qualities exists.

And that would be speculation on your part, God's existence can be proven by reason alone actually by reason it can be proven that He must exist.

Your speculation is merely that, a fantasy. Meanwhile, theories about the origins of mankind and the universe continue to accumulate supporting reliable evidence.

None of these theories are conclusive when it comes to the origin of it all and if one is concerned about finding out the objective truth, existence of possible things, and about the very final destination of an individual.

 

[wynn]

the body generates the conceived self, not the self as context.

I have seen you mention this before. I have read up on it, but I am finding it really difficult to understand.
To me, both the conceived self as well as the self as context mean the same. I experience my body as "context".
In Buddhism, "external" is used to mean both one's body as well as the room one is in, the people one is surrounded with etc. For example, if one is hungry or ill, this is considered an external circumstance. Whereas things pertaining to the mind are considered internal.

What kind of self is the jiva?

as mentioned before, your ideas about the universe are not falsifiable, what to speak of your ideas of personhood. This is because in both instances they are phenomena that contextualizes the entire gamut of the working field of empiricism

Does this mean that a jiva cannot understand (at least not by its own efforts) how it is that it is a person - a person cannot understand his own personhood?

From the vantage point of other disciplines, the path of impersonalism (which incorporates such disciplines as Buddhism) simply focuses on the illusory foundation of material existence. IOW it affirms that "I am not this, I am not that." So it knows what one isn't, but doesn't approach what one is.

Yes, as selfhood is considered one of those things that if one were to make conjectures about it, this would bring madness and vexation to one (it's not directly listed in the sutta, but, so some teachers, it goes under "origin of the world" - ie. all wonderings about the origin of this or that).
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html)
Interestingly, the sutta speaks of such consequences if one were to conjecture about those things. It does not say that such things cannot be known, ever. (The Buddha knows them, of course. But the Buddha does not conjecture.)

This path accommodates those who have severe reservations about not only their own personhood, but also the prospect of existing under the framework of a greater one (ie god). Kind of like a person that owns a house that is getting severely taxed by the government so they decide to burn it down to avoid all the problem. IOW they don't have the necessary information to utilize the self as functioning asset, so they are left with a picture of the self as a source of pain and illusion.

Well - yes.


I have always been amazed/frustrated by people making claims that they are "persons" - "I know who I am", "I am my own person", when what they were refrring to were things that I didn't see how they have something to do with being a person. That is, they referred to their bodies, their likes and dislikes, their thoughts, their emotions, their posessions.

A commercial like L'Oreal's "Because you respect yourself" can put me in a metaphysical spin, because I can't see the connection between using a particular cosmetic product and "respecting yourself".
And then "personal questionnaries" in people's diaries and such. "What is your favorite drink? What is your favorite color?" I'd rather do a page of integer calculations than answer one such question, it would be easier and less frustrating!

Ever since I can remember, I had this amazement/frustration when faced with the statements of artists, wine tasters, fashion designers, professional athletes, politicians. Somehow, to these people, their likes and dislikes, their bodies, possessions etc. seemed to have made a difference in their lives, while mine never seemed to have made a difference in mine. I could never relate to the enthusiasm or the disgust with which people would speak about those things.

IOW you are not in a position to make falsifiable claims about consciousness or the universe, since these very things preclude your existence.

Just like an ant cannot know the workings of a human, or an employee cannot know the exact workings of the company?