Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently October 21st, 2017, 7:29 am


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 25th, 2007, 5:40 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Shit, such a simple question found such a huge response.

Yes science is for explaining how something happens, why is for philosophy.

Now then actually if I remember right Buddism don't not believe in an end of all things so much as they believe the end and begining are one in the same, not a circle. In fact I think trying to think of time as a shape is rather foolish concept. The is a past, a present and a future, it had a beginning and therefore like everything else must have an end. Also from what I understand from grazing of things, matter was never created. In short existance follows a cicle, like the Hinudist believe of everything being swollowed by a gigantic black hole which in turn will cause another big bang. It is unknown exactly many time this proccess has happened or what follows. It is possible that the multi-verse thero is wrong and in fact that there is only one demension with a cicle for each possiblity.

Also the reasoning that everything that exists has a reason for existing is based on our observations of nature here on earth, that is not to say that it is the same way threw out the unverse. Again however I stand beside the only thing in existance that has no reason for existing is existance itself.

As for the concept of god, well what exactly would a god be? It could by the subconious will of the universe or the group subconious of humans to a mere figmint of our imaginations to give us comfort. I believe there is a god I just haven't figure out what exactly it is yet. Any body got any ideas?

Yeah not much help. too much stuff between posts, can't reply to it all.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 25th, 2007, 8:47 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
I personally believe that God/Allah/the Goddess/whatever-you-call-it is the collective consciousness of everything in the Universe. God is not some distant, ephemeral being that sits in Heaven (or an alternate dimension); God is a part of all things, from the sentient, to the living, to the inanimate. In short, WE are God, but just as the individual cells of a human body are not aware of the greater existence and purpose of the entire body, so we are unaware of our part in a higher form of existence.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 26th, 2007, 3:50 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
As for the concept of god, well what exactly would a god be? It could by the subconious will of the universe or the group subconious of humans to a mere figmint of our imaginations to give us comfort. I believe there is a god I just haven't figure out what exactly it is yet. Any body got any ideas?.


Historically, there have been many types of "god" that people have believed in and in fact, when one uses that term, it will mean very different things to different people (which is why the question "do you believe in god" is in it of itself, a meaningless question) as evidenced by the fact that what most people mean by "god" in recent western tradition probably does not correspond to, for instance, the God of Christianity.

N.T. Wright describes this type of god quite nicely:

"...a being who lived up the in the sky, looking down disapprovingly at the world, occasionally “intervening” to do miracles, sending bad people to hell while allowing good people to share his heaven."

In ancient paganism for instance, the gods were manifestations of the forces and drives that exist in nature. In pantheism, god was nature itself and everything within it (this is similar to stoicism). Then there are ideas such as deism, in which god was a being that set everything in motion but then refrained from any activity afterward. It's interesting to note that the deism and stoicism would eventually lead to theoretical and practical atheism. In the first "god" became so far away that he simply disappeared (which is what happened with Marx in the 19th century); the second can get so used to "gods" being all around, that it ceases to care about them (which is what happened with paganism in Rome and Greece)

Then of course there was Judaism. What separated Judaism from paganism, and many other previous conceptions of god and the spiritual was that rather than a manifestation of the forces and drives in the world, YHWH was the creator of all that exists. This classical Jewish monotheism revolved around the concept that there was one God who created heaven and earth and remained in close and dynamic relationship with his creation, and that this God called Israel to be his special people. A God of creation and covenant, of Exodus and Return.

This is also the basis for Christianity, which is essentially, a "New Judaism" with the messiah Christ who proclaimed the "new way to be Israel." The concepts of a Trinitarian God as well as death & resurrection, justification & redemption, and salvation & transformation are important themes within early as well as modern Christianity.

That was just a little summary of the different "types" of God that people have believed in and worshiped. I'll share my personal views on the subject later if I deem it necessary.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 26th, 2007, 7:13 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
The Adict wrote:
Shit, such a simple question found such a huge response.

What did you think? That five or six posts would satisfy the discussion? On such a controverse topic? :D
Of course you realize that the discussion will increase once a concept like "god" enters the arena of debate. 8)

The Adict wrote:
(Buddhists) believe the end and begining are one in the same, not a circle.

But in a circle beginning and end cannot be distinguished, right?
Who do you think invented the number "0" (zero), virtually a circle?
We owe that number to Buddhist thinkers and their worship of nothingness.

The Adict wrote:
As for the concept of god, well what exactly would a god be?

You just expanded the topic manyfold. 8)

Zaxares wrote:
I personally believe that God/Allah/the Goddess/whatever-you-call-it is the collective consciousness of everything in the Universe.

I think this is a pretty good answer. More elaborate than what I had in mind, but I never tried to find a finite definition.

Spaz added reasonable information, thanks for that. Reads good.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 26th, 2007, 8:34 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
I personally believe that God/Allah/the Goddess/whatever-you-call-it is the collective consciousness of everything in the Universe. God is not some distant, ephemeral being that sits in Heaven (or an alternate dimension); God is a part of all things, from the sentient, to the living, to the inanimate. In short, WE are God, but just as the individual cells of a human body are not aware of the greater existence and purpose of the entire body, so we are unaware of our part in a higher form of existence.


That sounds like a blend of Hinduism, Stoicism, and Pantheism.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 26th, 2007, 2:36 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
One yes 42317 I knew the conversation would be long just not that long. And du that was the intention because everybodies view on 'god' are different and rather facinating.

Two the word 'god' is much like toa in Toa Te Ching, one word for for many many different things. We usually place coniousnesses that we don't understand or extremely powerful forces under this word. Or it is also possible that like buddism partially suggests and christanity that 'god' has many different parts.

Also in case you're all wondering, when it comes to philosophy I don't have a vast book read knowledge base, most of what I know is from my own observations, so I may come off as nivee or be unable to articualate what I mean. For both I appologize.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 29th, 2007, 9:48 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
The Adict wrote:
when it comes to philosophy I don't have a vast book read knowledge base, most of what I know is from my own observations

Obviously. :D But don't worry, you're just applying the Greek approach.
Those guys 2300 years ago thought they could solve the world's mysteries by deep thinking and observing...
Well, it lead to some really interesting observations and some really strange thoughts. :)
Aristotle e.g. has left us some interesting stuff concerning phonetics. Some of his observations about the creation of speech sound are very impressive, but most of his assumptions were far from truth.
(I won't go into this now...)

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 29th, 2007, 11:08 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Great so you're saying I'm wrong most of the time, thanks. But with all seriousness how do you know something is true unless you have observed it for yourself? Not angry just opening another point of discussion, do you have to read all the philosophical books to be wise, or correct? Then again is there really a universial answer or does it differ upon a person. I talking about real answers not truths like, you will die or you need oxigen to live.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 29th, 2007, 12:43 pm 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
The Adict wrote:
Great so you're saying I'm wrong most of the time

I'm not saying "you are wrong", but - come to think of it - I'm saying "you are in the immediate danger of being wrong."
Your observations are, by you, interpreted on the basis of your personal background and opinions. An exactly equal phenomenon will be interpreted in a completely different way by another person.

On the one hand that is bad, because we can never know whether we are close to the truth that way.
On the other hand that is good, because it offers opportunities for open discussion, which in turn might alter our views on things.
In other words, this is good because we can hardly arrive at the truth, but it is good because it gives us hints that point at the truth.

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 30th, 2007, 10:40 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
But that would happen even from reading a book because you have to put into terms you can understand based upon your own life expierences. There is a difference between learning philiosophy threw books and threw intellegent conversation, there's a different.

42317 you do have a point but the flaw is life and its truth are based solely on one perspective of what is truth. In short the mind is a construct of reality and reality is in many way a construct of the mind. What is absolute truth to own may be an abolsute lie to another. Also we all are on the verge of being wrong, that's what makes philosohpy so fun.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 30th, 2007, 12:42 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
The Adict wrote:
42317 you do have a point but the flaw is life and its truth are based solely on one perspective of what is truth. In short the mind is a construct of reality and reality is in many way a construct of the mind. What is absolute truth to own may be an abolsute lie to another. Also we all are on the verge of being wrong, that's what makes philosohpy so fun.


Well that seems to imply that truth is subjective. However if that is true, then well, it really wouldn't be truth now would it. It would seem that truth, by definition, must be objective (just like morality, by definition, must be objective) which would mean that regardless of whether you, me, or anyone in the universe thinks about it, save perhaps for God, it would be true. Hence what is true is true regardless of whether it is convenient or regardless of whether or not the majority of the people believe it to be true. In our world absolute truth is hard to come by certainly, since society has generally come to the conclusion that truth is somehow subjective (even though that statement seems inherently contradictory) and hence whatever the majority of the people or the majority of the scholars believe to be "true" is usually declared "truth" even though that's not really what truth is about.

However, I'm all be certain that truth does exist. Why? Well certainly it is not possible that everything is relative and that everything is subjective. In order for the subjective to exist there must first exist the objective, the reference point. Otherwise, nothing would really exist at all, which is poor philosophy by any standard.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 30th, 2007, 7:59 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
spazmaster666 wrote:
However, I'm all be certain that truth does exist. Why? Well certainly it is not possible that everything is relative and that everything is subjective. In order for the subjective to exist there must first exist the objective, the reference point. Otherwise, nothing would really exist at all, which is poor philosophy by any standard.


Which is actually the core belief of certain religions like Zen Buddhism. :wink: Reality is an illusion. History is a lie. The truth is only what the mind perceives it to be.

If everybody who lived through World War II was killed, everybody who even KNOWS about WWII was killed, and all evidence and historical text relating to the event were destroyed, could we say for certain that WWII happened? Since by today's standards, truth must be backed up by evidence, if no evidence for a person or event exists, if even memories of that person/event do not exist, did that person or event exist at all?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 30th, 2007, 9:29 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
Which is actually the core belief of certain religions like Zen Buddhism. :wink: Reality is an illusion. History is a lie. The truth is only what the mind perceives it to be.


Like I said, in order for subjective truth to exist, there must be objective truth. Relativity is meaningless if there is no reference point. And subjective truth is meaningless without objective truth.

Zaxares wrote:
If everybody who lived through World War II was killed, everybody who even KNOWS about WWII was killed, and all evidence and historical text relating to the event were destroyed, could we say for certain that WWII happened? Since by today's standards, truth must be backed up by evidence, if no evidence for a person or event exists, if even memories of that person/event do not exist, did that person or event exist at all?


I just told you, it doesn't matter if no one believes something existed or something to be true. It doesn't matter if every single person on the earth believes it to be false. Something objective is true and exists regardless of what anyone in the universe may believe, that's what objective means: it exists ontologically.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 30th, 2007, 11:23 pm 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
spazmaster666 wrote:
Like I said, in order for subjective truth to exist, there must be objective truth. Relativity is meaningless if there is no reference point. And subjective truth is meaningless without objective truth.


Relative truth does not mean that we do not need a reference point. It simply means that the reference point is largely irrelevant and can be variable from one person to another.

Coming from your point of view, I understand why you say subjective truth is meaningless without objective truth, but the real question it raises is, "Is the truth even meaningful at all?"

spazmaster666 wrote:
I just told you, it doesn't matter if no one believes something existed or something to be true. It doesn't matter if every single person on the earth believes it to be false. Something objective is true and exists regardless of what anyone in the universe may believe, that's what objective means: it exists ontologically.


But what if it ISN'T really true? What if the reality you see around you is merely a construct of your imagination? What if there was nobody else in the whole universe but you, and you're simply talking to illusionary people and eating illusionary food? What if you lived in only a tiny bubble of reality that existed only as far as your immediate surroundings, and that the moment you moved out of sight or range, the area ceased to exist?

Suppose you decided on a whim to call your friend. You ring their number, and hear them answer, and you presume that they were always there. What if they WEREN'T there? Perhaps the moment you thought about calling your friend, your mind conjured them into existence, complete with all the personalities and characteristics that you believe your friend to have, and put them there just in time to answer your phone call.

Can you truly, absolutely, say for certain that truth exists in a universe where you say things are true, because you believe them to be true?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: May 31st, 2007, 9:45 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 16th, 2007, 8:22 am
Posts: 795
Location: The Home of Terminally Stupid
Actually spaz, morality is subjective. Morality based off of what is right and what is wrong is subjective to that idivigual. Also I already said that there are absolute truths in this reality, such as you will die and you need to breath air to continue living and you will grow old and so forth. Note I said this reality no matter its actual nature.

And Zaxares that is the classic how do you prove that reality really exist at all. And THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING!!!

And despite how ridiculous what Zaxares said about world war two, it is true. If all records are destroyed and nobody remembers it then it is almost as if it never existed, all that's left are the effects that it caused. A classic example is the myster of what happened three to four thousand years ago. I don't remember the exact date. In any case in a tweny year span every major colture in the word outside of Egypit (spelled wrong sorry) and China were obliterated completely. These were the most powerful and advance coltures in the world and were wiped out and we don't know how, why or who did it. We only know these civilizations exist because of the few runes and artifacts were left behind. Otherwise they may as well never exist.

Another Hindu thing, and christian actually everything returns to which it came, dust to dust, ashes to ashes, everything returns to its orginal state, it's just a matter of time.

_________________
I'm back, and my spelling is actually worse then before. Though my grammar is better. You have been warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group