NotanOriginalName Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If God created the Universe,Who created God. And does God have a beginning or an end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If God created the Universe,Who created God. And does God have a beginning or an end. This is one of many reasons the argument for god falls down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is a way to come out of that paradox, God has two properties one is called as Saguna(means having divine qualities) and this may be the one which is called as Allah, Yahweh, Savithru, Abrahamic God and other personal gods and the other one is called as Nirguna(means without having any properties or qualities). Since some school of philosophical thought argue that a substance having no properties or qualities would itself mean that it is unique and has a property and therefore normally it is wrong to speak or say anything about it. You can call it Non-dual, Unity or whatever. Both properties are eternal and ever existing, so NO, God doesn't have a begining or an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 ...and the other one is called as Nirguna(means without having any properties or qualities). And by this definition, does not exist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinW Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 And by this definition, does not exist Or, by that definition, always existed and always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Or, by that definition, always existed and always will. How is "without having any properties or qualities" a case for something existing? If it has no properties and no qualities what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Where did god come from? Human imagination. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Where did god come from? Human imagination. Sorry, I didn't answer the original question. ^What iNow said^ Ignorance + Fear = god Edited January 18, 2012 by Tres Juicy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotanOriginalName Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I agree.In most religions, gods can be divided into two categories. One,who give hope. Others,who are there to make people realize that the wrongdoers shall be punished for their acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackrobinson 95 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 and on the first day , man created God 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Or, by that definition, always existed and always will. Existence is a property that, for example I have and my sister doesn't. (I have only one sibling, and he's my brother) Since existence is a property, anything without properties cannot have existence and, therefore, does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jryan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 This is one of many reasons the argument for god falls down. How so? God is thought of as an infinite, not a finite, being. There was no "before God" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How so? God is thought of as an infinite, not a finite, being. There was no "before God" Oh I see... Magic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Existence is a property that, for example I have and my sister doesn't. (I have only one sibling, and he's my brother) Since existence is a property, anything without properties cannot have existence and, therefore, does not exist. Sweet is the property of sugar. What is sweetness? Define sweetness. What properties does a property have? In the same way existence is the property of a self aware body, when you say 'I' have this property of existence, upon close introspection you'll see that the word 'I' refers to your body. Long time back I saw in National Geographic Channel that some people have Synesthesia, one form of synesthesia is the Lexical --> Gustatory Synesthesia in which the subject can experience tastes when they hear specific sounds. For example:- The sound of your name might produce an experience of a specific taste in those individuals. This shows that things like sweetness and other properties are only mental qualias, they exist only in our minds seperate from the objects to which they are associated with. According to James Wannerton, "Whenever I hear, read, or articulate (inner speech) words or word sounds, I experience an immediate and involuntary taste sensation on my tongue. These very specific taste associations never change and have remained the same for as long as I can remember." Similarly Existence is a property and it exists on its own without a body to associate itself with, you can not define such a thing with any other property because what you're trying to describe is the property itself and not the object. The question is What is existence? What is it? You can not objectify existence because what you're trying to define or describe is a property by itself and it can not have any other properties and doesn't a property exist distinct and seperate from its object? Ofcourse it does and therefore such a concept of God indeed exists. The whole eastern philosophy of Non-dualism of Sankara is based on this concept of God that you can know that you're existence itself only through experience and the only thing which exists eternally is existence itself and that thinking I completely dissolves or disappears in such a state. We are ONE, We are existence, there is no I here, no individuation here. The people who developed such a concept of God weren't dumb people. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 You are asking a question, that you can't find out. You don't know enough about the world outside our world to even guess. It's just the way things work. To an atheist, it's like gravity. Where it came from, there's not even enough info for him to guess. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 "Sweet is the property of sugar. What is sweetness? Define sweetness. " OK http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sweet Though I'd be tempted to throw in something about the effect on certain receptor cells on the tongue of humans and (I think) most animals. Obviously it's also used metaphorically (love is sweet). And it's used to describe the pattern of electrical activity in the brain associated with the stimulation of sensors on the tongue. "What properties does a property have?" It depends on the property. Some properties, like hot, have the property of having a well defined opposite (cold in this case. Some don't- like sweet which might be the opposite of sour, bitter, unsweetened or something else, depending on circumstances. "when you say 'I' have this property of existence, upon close introspection you'll see that the word 'I' refers to your body." On slightly closer introspection (or just copying M. Descartes) I will find that it's my mind I'm referring to, rather than my body. "Long time back I saw in National Geographic Channel that some people have Synesthesia, one form of synesthesia is the Lexical --> Gustatory Synesthesia in which the subject can experience tastes when they hear specific sounds. For example:- The sound of your name might produce an experience of a specific taste in those individuals. This shows that things like sweetness and other properties are only mental qualias, they exist only in our minds seperate from the objects to which they are associated with." Not really, the sensation of sweetness is a pattern of activity in the brain. That might be induced by sugar or it might be cross talk from an adjacent area of the brain. If the best example of one of the mysterious "qualia" that you can come up with is a neural wiring problem then I don't think they are that important "Similarly Existence is a property and it exists on its own without a body to associate itself with," once again, I think you need to see M Descartes' work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 "Sweet is the property of sugar. What is sweetness? Define sweetness. " OK http://dictionary.re...om/browse/sweet Though I'd be tempted to throw in something about the effect on certain receptor cells on the tongue of humans and (I think) most animals. Obviously it's also used metaphorically (love is sweet). And it's used to describe the pattern of electrical activity in the brain associated with the stimulation of sensors on the tongue. "What properties does a property have?" It depends on the property. Some properties, like hot, have the property of having a well defined opposite (cold in this case. Some don't- like sweet which might be the opposite of sour, bitter, unsweetened or something else, depending on circumstances. "when you say 'I' have this property of existence, upon close introspection you'll see that the word 'I' refers to your body." On slightly closer introspection (or just copying M. Descartes) I will find that it's my mind I'm referring to, rather than my body. "Long time back I saw in National Geographic Channel that some people have Synesthesia, one form of synesthesia is the Lexical --> Gustatory Synesthesia in which the subject can experience tastes when they hear specific sounds. For example:- The sound of your name might produce an experience of a specific taste in those individuals. This shows that things like sweetness and other properties are only mental qualias, they exist only in our minds seperate from the objects to which they are associated with." Not really, the sensation of sweetness is a pattern of activity in the brain. That might be induced by sugar or it might be cross talk from an adjacent area of the brain. If the best example of one of the mysterious "qualia" that you can come up with is a neural wiring problem then I don't think they are that important "Similarly Existence is a property and it exists on its own without a body to associate itself with," once again, I think you need to see M Descartes' work. I have replied to this post by quoting you in this thread --> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63509-scientism-and-how-this-worldview-affects-open-discussions-in-the-philosophy-and-religious-forums-threads/page__st__20__gopid__656214 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The people who developed such a concept of God weren't dumb people. No, they were looking for a way to manipulate and control "dumb prople" and they seem to have done a very good job 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I have replied to this post by quoting you in this thread --> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63509-scientism-and-how-this-worldview-affects-open-discussions-in-the-philosophy-and-religious-forums-threads/page__st__20__gopid__656214 You have indeed replied there. But sadly, you have yet to answer me. Either this " God has two properties one is called as Saguna(means having divine qualities) and this may be the one which is called as Allah, Yahweh, Savithru, Abrahamic God and other personal gods and the other one is called as Nirguna(means without having any properties or qualities)" is incorrect or God doesn't exist. Because something "without having any properties or qualities" lacks the quality of "existence" or, indeed, "importance". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You have indeed replied there. But sadly, you have yet to answer me. Either this " God has two properties one is called as Saguna(means having divine qualities) and this may be the one which is called as Allah, Yahweh, Savithru, Abrahamic God and other personal gods and the other one is called as Nirguna(means without having any properties or qualities)" is incorrect or God doesn't exist. Because something "without having any properties or qualities" lacks the quality of "existence" or, indeed, "importance". It is because your definition of sweetness is not in accordance with my definition of sweetness. To me qualia are non-physical, they have independent existence and therefore sweetness has non-physical existence, You're not sweetness because you exist even when you don't experience sweetness, you're existence but its outside of our universal room just like how some qualia can be outside of mary's room and this experience of existence is not stimulated by external stimuli of receptors so that the experience comes and goes after few seconds, you experience existence as long as you exist and you don't experience anything else or anyother qualia and therefore you are existence itself, a qualia which exists indepedently on its own. What attributes can a qualia have? It indeed exists, you experience it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 "To me qualia are non-physical, they have independent existence " It's all very well defining something as being non physical. The problem is that electrical impulses in the brain 1 are physical and 2 are present whenever sweetness is present and are absent when it is absent. Can you distinguish between the signals that always coincide with sweetness and sweetness itself? Sweetness happens in the brain- the synaesthesia example shows that. But the only thing that happens in the brain is essentially rather complicated electrochemistry. So sweetness must be a part of that electrochemistry. Just because you say it isn't "physical" doesn't make you right. What's wrong with my logic? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) "To me qualia are non-physical, they have independent existence " It's all very well defining something as being non physical. The problem is that electrical impulses in the brain 1 are physical and 2 are present whenever sweetness is present and are absent when it is absent. Can you distinguish between the signals that always coincide with sweetness and sweetness itself? Sweetness happens in the brain- the synaesthesia example shows that. But the only thing that happens in the brain is essentially rather complicated electrochemistry. So sweetness must be a part of that electrochemistry. Just because you say it isn't "physical" doesn't make you right. What's wrong with my logic? The theory is that mind is non-physical and these qualia of our universal room are confined within the mind and these neurological pathways that exist in the brain are mere amplifiers which help in the amplification of these qualia experience in the non-physical mind and therefore the neurological pathways and the non-physical mind are coupled and therefore the brain firing is obviously connected to qualia experience. This is the theory or the hypothesis. If physicalism is true i.e if these qualia are mere patterns in the brain then they can be copied to neural networks just like how we copy other patterns like behavior, voice recognition etc. So if you have to disprove the above hypothesis then you have to implement the following in a neural network. 1. you have to copy these patterns into a neural network. 2. you also need to come up with a module to simulate self awareness in a neural network because according to physicalism even self awareness is a complex pattern in the human brain. 3. so that I, you or anyone can run ourselves or run our mental states in that neural network and experience what it is like to be a neural network. 4. If I and you experience redness, sweetness and other qualia and have knowledge of what it is like to be a neural network then the above hypothesis will be proved wrong. As you realize the problem of qualia is intertwined with the hard problem of consciousness. This is the reason science should investigate in other methods of investigating these qualia or solve the hard-problem of consciousness with in its positivist reductionist approach. Edited February 8, 2012 by immortal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It invokes far less mysticism and woo to simply say that consciousness is an emergent property of the chemoelectrical activity taking place throughout the nervous system. You're assuming structure instead of demonstrating it. That seems to be a real weakness in your approach... an a priori assumption that seems rather unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 No, they were looking for a way to manipulate and control "dumb prople" and they seem to have done a very good job If the problem was a piece of cake then the U.S didn't had to go through this kind of shit. http://truthxchange.com/articles/2011/04/12/confronting-neopaganism-in-the-culture-and-the-church/ Unfortunately whatever event happens or whatever the consequences that nation faces it affects everyone around the world. These kinds of extremism is displayed by people because science doesn't give them answers to those big metaphysical questions and they rely towards misinformed people who are themselves deluded and manipulate them and make them as their followers and its all because of the default position held by the scientific community saying that they're not going to waste their time by investigating on metaphysics and trans-personal psychology coming out of their positivist reductionist approach, if there was an organization or a standard a part within the scientific community which gave directions to people and educate them about what the truth is then it will prevent these extremists from gaining human resource and money power. People are smart enough they're not going to hold on to the default position held by the scientific community because it doesn't satisfy them and therefore they seek truth in mysticism. All the above problems are linked to this problem of qualia - the hard problem of consciousness and I seriously think that it should be investigated and people should be made aware of what the truth is or else we might have to live in a dangerous society which holds some highly disturbing ideas which drives people insane. This the reason I say it is a matter of responsibility or a wake up call. I am not playing around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If God created the Universe,Who created God. And does God have a beginning or an end. If you believe in the Big Bang theory then you must also accept the energy released was the living God. The Big Bang theory has as much credibility as the theory that God exists. It all came from nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now