Phi for All Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 1. What right do I have to eat other plants/animals for my survival, when they also have life in them just like I have life? This odd concept we have of "right" overcoming "need" gets us into lots of compromising positions. We should value all life, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the reality of survival. To me, it's disrespectful to the animals and plants that keep us alive when we moan about having to kill them to survive. It's a necessary process, acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful. But don't pretend like it's wrong to kill and eat other animals and plants. None of them would agree with you. 2. Why would a good creator allow this? Interdependence is a very efficient way to maximize the use of resources. 3. Why would a good creator even allow duality, when it smacks of discrimination by way of separation from the state of pure bliss? If someone has been fat all their life, they know nothing else. If you want them to be truly motivated to lose weight, let them be skinny for a day to see what it's like. Sometimes it's hard to know you want something else if there's no apparent choice. 4. Why should I believe in eternal matter/universe rather than an eternal creator, when both concepts are unexplainable ? In science, the term is unfalsifiable. There is no way to show something supernatural to be false. This is a basic premise of the methodology science is built on, that to be considered as a trustworthy explanation, an idea has to be capable of being wrong. Gods who refuse to let themselves be observed or their actions to be consistent and predictable are acting outside of the natural physical laws science is designed to support. If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation.
Deepak Kapur Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) This ..... This odd concept we have of "right" overcoming "need" gets us into lots of compromising positions. We should value all life, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the reality of survival. To me, it's disrespectful to the animals and plants that keep us alive when we moan about having to kill them to survive. It's a necessary process, acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful. But don't pretend like it's wrong to kill and eat other animals and plants. None of them would agree with you. I think...... If a lion comes and eats someone's child in order to satisfy his hunger, he/she would never say......... It's a necessary process, I should acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful.......and such things. He/She would indeed consider it 'evil'. Interdependence is a very efficient way to maximize the use of resources. Such interdependence breeds evil as mentioned above. If someone has been fat all their life, they know nothing else. If you want them to be truly motivated to lose weight, let them be skinny for a day to see what it's like. Sometimes it's hard to know you want something else if there's no apparent choice. If someone is extremely happy and we give him pain so that he can have a choice, I don't think it's a good move... In science, the term is unfalsifiable. There is no way to show something supernatural to be false. This is a basic premise of the methodology science is built on, that to be considered as a trustworthy explanation, an idea has to be capable of being wrong. Gods who refuse to let themselves be observed or their actions to be consistent and predictable are acting outside of the natural physical laws science is designed to support. If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation. Science is trying to fathom the causes of bigbang and is trying for a unified theory to explain the universe...it's a good and extremely difficult job that can be the envy of even an advanced alien race... If tomorrow, such a solution/theory is formed, would it be the final word, would all questions end.... Now, suppose 2999 A.D. , would we have the final word, would all the questions end........ and so on..... It does not mean that we should stop asking questions and cease our efforts.........even if the questions keep on popping up ad infinitum It's not about supernatural...it's about the natural that keeps on evading our grips, that keeps on surprising us ad infinitum.... In my opinion the sooner humans acknowledge that we are on our own and that there isn't a heaven, a god to replenish the earth, and this life is all we have the better. Once we acknowledge those things we as a society can set about answering questions about the way we want to live. What's the harm in believing in an ideal ( God or whatever one may call him) that.... ....leads you to a state of bliss. ....creates love in you even for the minutest of life forms (not only love for humans alone). ....makes you realize that the life you are leading is nothing but the result of a grand killing game called 'food chain'. ....does not want blind faith but motivates you to ask questions that even seek justification from the 'ideal' that you believe in. ....hints at higher modes of living. Edited June 10, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
dimreepr Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) "Supreme bliss" How do you know such a state exists? From personal experience......... There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god? And how does it differ from simply being content with your life and how you fit in the world? Because it tells us that in order to be content in life we have to be alive first. And 'being alive' (even breathing) is such a cruel process ( courtesy the food chain) that any contentment is just a farce. It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content. so maybe you should re-direct your enquiries to within guess what...........I have already done that ( but answers still elude me, nevertheless I will be persistent in my efforts...come what may) Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are: 1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding. 2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself. 3. The illusion that expectation equals results. 4. The illusion that wants equals need. 5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here. Edited June 10, 2014 by dimreepr
Deepak Kapur Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Phi for All, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:24 AM, said: In science, the term is unfalsifiable. I could not write more in the previous post as the cursor refused to create more space, so I am continuing here................ Many things can be made ridiculous/supernatural/unfalsifiable in science by the use of right words and concepts... Just a small example (there are many)..... As per contemporary science, time is said to have begun with big bang itself. So, if time began with the big bang, how did the universe decide that now is the 'time' to come into existence? This seems ridiculous. Does this mean our concept of time is wrong? Does it mean there is something supernatural before the big bang? Does it mean that when we have found what caused big bang ( and how it happened), we would have all our questions solved for ever? A preliminary answer to all the above questions is a NO. Seen from this view point, there is nothing like 'supernatural'. Everything 'natural' is 'supernatural' until understood. But this does not give us guarantee that we will be able to explain all the natural things. Questions just continue ad infinitum.... So its not a question of believing in something unfalsiable (supernatural), its about the inherent infinite & inexplicable nature of knowledge (or universe or existence or anything). e.g. I have a marble in my hand. Can I explain it...... Only to some extent. Science/Knowledge can explain the place it was made, It can explain the elements it contains, It can explain what led to the formation of its constituent elements (and various other associated things), but beyond that It is just helpless, because beyond it we encounter bigbang. In future we may go many steps further but ultimately we would be stuck at a point that would not be explicable by the prevailing theories at that time. Beyond that everything would be supernatural/inexplicable. If anyone can propose any scenario (even extremely hypothetical) that brings an end to all further questions, please share it . Phi for All, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:24 AM, said: If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation. At present, three prominent theories about the origin of our universe are talked about.. 1. Big Bang ( something like spontaneous creation). 2. Presence of eternal matter ( its interactions have led to our universe). 3. Presence of an eternal creator ( the eternal creator created our 'contingent' universe) There are others also but all including the 3 mentioned above are inexplicable. That's why I said that when everything is explicable what the harm in believing in an eternal creator ( an ideal, an idea ) If anyone can even have a wild idea of a theory/concept that explains everything about the creation of our universe and leaves no room for further questions, please share it. There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god? It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content. Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are: 1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding. 2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself. 3. The illusion that expectation equals results. 4. The illusion that wants equals need. 5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here. There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god? Experiencing bliss in not a one time activity...it's a long process. I have just tasted a bit of it. My goal is eternal bliss. I am just at the start of a long journey. When you attain supreme bliss, you yourself become God (there is no duality whatsoever). Till then appeals to that God( eternal blissful state) are a step in that direction only. It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content. If I am being eaten piece by piece by a group of wolves, I will not say, it's just a process. Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are: 1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding. 2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself. 3. The illusion that expectation equals results. 4. The illusion that wants equals need. 5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here. Some people even say that the reality we experience is just an illusion, because we are just part of a matrix or we are just thoughts in somebody's mind. Such introspections don't lead to the feelings of bliss, love for all and abhorrence for duality. Edited June 10, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
dimreepr Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 If I am being eaten piece by piece by a group of wolves, I will not say, it's just a process. Nevertheless, it is just a process. Some people even say that the reality we experience is just an illusion, because we are just part of a matrix or we are just thoughts in somebody's mind. Such introspections don't lead to the feelings of bliss, love for all and abhorrence for duality. Think harder.
Phi for All Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I think...... If a lion comes and eats someone's child in order to satisfy his hunger, he/she would never say.........It's a necessary process, I should acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful.......and such things. He/She would indeed consider it 'evil'. That would make them a hypocrite if they eat animals or plants to live. To me, that's more evil than killing to eat. Such interdependence breeds evil as mentioned above. Evil is subjective. It shouldn't even be in our conversation unless we agree how to define it. If someone is extremely happy and we give him pain so that he can have a choice, I don't think it's a good move... How do they know they're happy in the first place without something to compare? What's the difference between happy and extremely happy if happy is all you know? And I think you'll find that sadness is the opposite side of happiness, not pain, so I don't think it's a good move either. Science is trying to fathom the causes of bigbang and is trying for a unified theory to explain the universe it's a good and extremely difficult job that can be the envy of even an advanced alien race... If tomorrow, such a solution/theory is formed, would it be the final word, would all questions end.... Now, suppose 2999 A.D. , would we have the final word,would all the questions end........ and so on..... It does not mean that we should stop asking questions and cease our efforts.........even if the questions keep on popping up ad infinitum But this is built in to the methodology. Science isn't looking to prove anything. It gives us a trustworthy way to observe the universe and gather evidence to support conclusions we make about what we observe. We ask questions, but we're looking for explanations, not answers. Answers can't change, but explanations can always be changing to be the best available. It's not about supernatural...it's about the natural that keeps on evading our grips, that keeps on surprising us ad infinitum.... If you're talking about a god that we can't directly observe, then it IS about the supernatural. We have natural laws that we observe the universe operating under, so if something can circumvent those laws or make it where we can't use science to observe and test and hypothesize about it, it's supernatural. Unless, of course, you have an example of something a god is doing that can't be explained by natural means.
MonDie Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Well, he decided that it wasn't going to be given on a plate. How can you know happiness without experiencing it's opposite ...one needs a reference. Alternatively, it circumvented this problem by implementing false memories of pain. Granted this argument only works if your listener isn't currently in pain. Edited June 11, 2014 by MonDie
Ten oz Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 What's the harm in believing in an ideal ( God or whatever one may call him) that.... ....leads you to a state of bliss. ....creates love in you even for the minutest of life forms (not only love for humans alone). ....makes you realize that the life you are leading is nothing but the result of a grand killing game called 'food chain'. ....does not want blind faith but motivates you to ask questions that even seek justification from the 'ideal' that you believe in. ....hints at higher modes of living. What is the Harm? For starters In my opinion God is a divisive figure. Culturally all Gods are different. As a result we have varying levels of regional hatred and international bias. Another harmful thing about God is that the overwhelming majority of gods come with a religious structure. Religions often encourage social structures in society that are detrimental. Lastly it trains people to accept all encompassing concepts that impact every area of human life without any evidence or logical thought. It teaches people that a fussy feeling is something in and of itself. 1
Phi for All Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 I have a marble in my hand. Can I explain it...... Only to some extent. Science/Knowledge can explain the place it was made, It can explain the elements it contains, It can explain what led to the formation of its constituent elements (and various other associated things), but beyond that It is just helpless, because beyond it we encounter bigbang. In future we may go many steps further but ultimately we would be stuck at a point that would not be explicable by the prevailing theories at that time. Beyond that everything would be supernatural/inexplicable. How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now. What do you find inexplicable about your marble? I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to. Similarly, you think there are answers for us in improving our knowledge of what went on at the exact moment of the Big Bang expansion, but what do you expect to relate to now? Our universe isn't anything like what it must have been like the nanosecond before expansion. You seem to suggest that because we don't know about that, we don't know anything. Another harmful thing about God is that the overwhelming majority of gods come with a religious structure. In my experience, the harm comes from religions that choose an evangelical approach. Religions that focus on personal growth and a personal god don't seem to cause as much harm as those that seek to convert everyone they can. Everyone feels that their god is right for them; when you start thinking your god is right for everybody, that's when you cause harm, imo.
barfbag Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) I think of God in more Scientific / Walter Russell type views / terms. I think every soul is a part of God. I think the physical world is meant for us to experience. If God never created Mankind (in his image), then God could not enjoy GTA5, or Pizza. You cannot have good without bad. Just being Blissful sounds a bit boring. God also experiences the Pain and starves to death daily. Experiences is our purpose Edited June 11, 2014 by barfbag
dimreepr Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) In my experience, the harm comes from religions that choose an evangelical approach. Religions that focus on personal growth and a personal god don't seem to cause as much harm as those that seek to convert everyone they can. Everyone feels that their god is right for them; when you start thinking your god is right for everybody, that's when you cause harm, imo. I agree, most religions, it seems to me, have at their heart a desire to teach peace, harmony and a way to be content with oneself and others; the majority of problems come from the desire, of the elders, to force these lessons on their pupils/converts rather than teach them. Edited June 11, 2014 by dimreepr
Deepak Kapur Posted June 11, 2014 Author Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now. What do you find inexplicable about your marble? I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to. How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now. What do you find inexplicable about your marble? It's not my marble.....it can be any marble! Everything that we have in this universe (including the marble) is the direct/indirect result of the big bang. When the cause itself is inexplicable, whatever that can be said of the result is not the full answer. Moreover, various concepts that are required to explain marble and its movement like mass, space, time, arrow of time, inertia, entropy etc. are debatable/not fully understood in contemporary science. I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to. I just want to say we should not have been created in the very first place but should have existed as an indivisible part of the supreme bliss. Now, that we have been created (i.e duality has been created), its good to reach up to that bliss but it's not good on the part of the creator to have created us/duality ( when we are devoid of the bliss that is essential nature of the creator/supreme ideal/God/pure idea/supreme mind). Edited June 11, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
Phi for All Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 I agree, most religions, it seems to me, have at their heart a desire to teach peace, harmony and a way to be content with oneself and others; the majority of problems come from the desire, of the elders, to force these lessons on their pupils/converts rather than teach them. Conversion requires you to think that everyone else is wrong and you're right. When you think you're right based on faith, you're now insisting everyone else is wrong based on things you can't possibly know. It's one of the most irrational processes I can think of. No one has ever been able to tell me why faith is considered a strong belief even though it doesn't rely on evidence and rational thought. It seems more like false confidence that you guessed correctly from among the thousands of religion choices. It's not my marble.....it can be any marble! Everything that we have in this universe (including the marble) is the direct/indirect result of the big bang. When the cause itself is inexplicable, whatever that can be said of the result is not the full answer. So you choose to throw out what we do know by claiming it's invalid because it's not "the full answer"? That's not how science works. We seek the best available explanation. We don't need to know what caused the Big Bang expansion to observe what happened afterwards, and make accurate predictions based on those observations. Again, I think you're stuck on this concept that if you don't know everything, you know nothing. Moreover, various concepts that are required to explain marble and its movement like mass, space, time, arrow of time, inertia, entropy etc. are debatable in contemporary science. I don't think there's as much debate about those types of physics problems as you think. Please give examples of where you think there is controversy with any of the concepts you've mentioned. I just want to say we should not have been created in the very first place but should have existed as an indivisible part of the supreme bliss. Now, that we have been created (i.e duality has been created), its good to reach up to that bliss but it's not good on the part of the creator to have created us/duality ( when we are devoid of the bliss that is essential nature of the creator/supreme ideal/God/pure idea/supreme mind). I personally don't believe a god exists at all, but even if I did I would stop short of telling him how to run his business.
rktpro Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Deepak mentions of supreme bliss. As a side note I would like to tell him what the Vedic Philosophy says: god is supreme bliss. It is not that happiness is in him, but he himself is bliss. As for accepting that there is a state of supreme bliss is just a matter of faith. Like we don't question why an A is written as such, or spelled as such. I confess that I am not content. I seek happiness, momentarily I get it, and then it's gone. I would like to experience supreme bliss. Deepak mentions of supreme bliss. As a side note I would like to tell him what the Vedic Philosophy says: god is supreme bliss. It is not that happiness is in him, but he himself is bliss. As for accepting that there is a state of supreme bliss is just a matter of faith. Like we don't question why an A is written as such, or spelled as such. I confess that I am not content. I seek happiness, momentarily I get it, and then it's gone. I would like to experience supreme bliss. Deepak mentions of supreme bliss. As a side note I would like to tell him what the Vedic Philosophy says: god is supreme bliss. It is not that happiness is in him, but he himself is bliss. As for accepting that there is a state of supreme bliss is just a matter of faith. Like we don't question why an A is written as such, or spelled as such. I confess that I am not content. I seek happiness, momentarily I get it, and then it's gone. I would like to experience supreme bliss.
Deepak Kapur Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 I don't think there's as much debate about those types of physics problems as you think. Please give examples of where you think there is controversy with any of the concepts you've mentioned. I personally don't believe a god exists at all, but even if I did I would stop short of telling him how to run his business. I don't think there's as much debate about those types of physics problems as you think. Please give examples of where you think there is controversy with any of the concepts you've mentioned. I am a nobody to tell/give examples. I 'just say' what 'seems' right to me. It seems to me that, you already know much-much more than me regarding the controversies. I would stop short of telling him how to run his business. It's not about telling....it's about asking.
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I am a nobody to tell/give examples. I 'just say' what 'seems' right to me. This is how religion works. "Seems" is based on emotions, emotions influence our better judgement, and pretty soon we're killing neighbors because they don't believe in the one true God and it "seems" right because it's for God, after all. Science, on the other hand, knows that many things that "seem right" are not. We know that our emotions and biases need to be held in check as much as we can if we want to observe reality best. Emotions have their place but not when we're trying to understand the nature of the universe. Look at the thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Is it more likely that one is real, that all are real, or that none are real?
Deepak Kapur Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) This is how religion works. "Seems" is based on emotions, emotions influence our better judgement, and pretty soon we're killing neighbors because they don't believe in the one true God and it "seems" right because it's for God, after all. Science, on the other hand, knows that many things that "seem right" are not. We know that our emotions and biases need to be held in check as much as we can if we want to observe reality best. Emotions have their place but not when we're trying to understand the nature of the universe. Look at the thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Is it more likely that one is real, that all are real, or that none are real? It seems to me that you have got the wrong meaning of the word 'seem' that I have used... I have used it to mean different things as follows.... 1. Seem = to think 2. Seem = to observe ( when I observe something red, it only 'seems' red to me because when the same red thing is seen by a snake or a bee, there is nothing red there). Reality is observer based, not absolute. 3. Seem = a sense of humbleness that arises when we realize/come to know that we can't be sure of 'what we are sure of' ( this includes surety about the feeling of supreme bliss also). Everything that humans have (words, language, senses, math, science etc.) are a description of the physical mechanisms/reality . They are not the mechanism/reality itself. Edited June 12, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I have used it to mean different things as follows.... Another mistake, imo. Definitions shouldn't adapt to what you want them to mean. Definitions provide a foundation for understanding and should lend utility to everyone who uses them that way. Definitions and descriptions are tools we use for communication mechanics. If you're unsure about what you think you should be sure about, maybe it's because you aren't using the right tools, or have modified them to mean different things so they don't work well for you anymore. Personally, I use the methodology of overwhelming evidence. The explanation that's best supported with reality-based evidence is the one I usually find most trustworthy. I rarely have moments where this method leaves me unsure. If I wonder if a snake sees red the same way I do, I can find out instead of guessing wrong.
Deepak Kapur Posted June 13, 2014 Author Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Another mistake, imo. When you use imo, you want to say that in my opinion this thing/statement is true, otherwise there are chances that it may be false also. It means you are not sure ( and it is a good thing, imo). Moreover, IMHO most of the important things have been discussed, only semantics is now going on. (Really?). Edited June 13, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
dimreepr Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 When you use imo, you want to say that in my opinion this thing/statement is true, otherwise there are chances that it may be false also. It means you are not sure ( and it is a good thing, imo). Moreover, IMHO most of the important things have been discussed, only semantics is now going on. (Really?). Well then, Deepak, I hope you got, at least, some of your answers; as god may take a while to post.
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Moreover, IMHO most of the important things have been discussed, only semantics is now going on. (Really?). Definitions aren't simple semantics. I don't have to couch this in opinion, this is fact. Without definitions that are agreed upon, we're talking about different things. It's pointless. You can't redefine words and expect everyone to accept your redefinitions while talking to you. I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate. 1
dimreepr Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate. Absolutely, +1, the best thing about a forum such as this, is the opportunity to explore understanding; it’s not about winning, losing, scoring points or having the last word. It’s about understanding and always being right, can only mean, one never learns.
Deepak Kapur Posted June 13, 2014 Author Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Phi for All, on 13 Jun 2014 - 07:28 AM, said: I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If such had been the case, I would never had said the following.........in a previous post because I strongly believe in existing as a blissful idea. "3. Seem = a sense of humbleness that arises when we realize/come to know that we can't be sure of 'what we are sure of' ( this includes surety about the feeling of supreme bliss also)." Below, I am going to present two viewpoints. I just seek honest comments, however bitter they may be. The Scientific View Science only believes in observing, making theories and testing the hypotheses with experiments. This is the only ‘true way’ in science. We (scientists) don’t believe in intuitions, beliefs, and other such stuff. We don’t want to tell the absolute truth, we just want to provide the best explanation for what we have. We believe, ‘To don’t know is extremely good.’ It means there is yet to know something that will give us joy of satisfaction and wonder. Even if there is a God, we despise such a God that says that humans can’t eat the fruit of knowledge, a God that says humans should not find knowledge without my help. We despise such a tyrant. We will continue to strive even if there are millions and millions of layers of reality, like some cosmic onion. We will not rest from travel, never to yield but ever strong in will and knowledge. The Other View (The View of Existing as Supreme Bliss) I have tried to explain it so please bear with me............... Agreed that the scientific method of observation, testing, falsification is good. Agreed that knowledge (questions) can never end, whether there is a God or not. Agreed that a good God will not behave as a tyrant/an indifferent entity (much of the evidence points in this direction only). So the possibility of there being a good God seems remote. But…………Just a little thought. What is the aim of this endless knowledge? Joy of wonder and satisfaction… or….. better no aim at all. Or something else…….. Now visualize a distant future for a moment……. Science has become so powerful that it can make changes in every type of organism (including humans) so that they are able to get energy directly from the sun and store it. They are also able to adjust their reproductive cycles so that no danger of overcrowding is there. Now, there is no need for living organisms to undergo the ‘blind process’ of killing each other via the food chain. Wouldn’t the scientists prefer such a system? Wouldn’t the joy they get from this new system surpass the joy they get from wonder and satisfaction? ( you can always say NO and stop reading further) Now visualize a still distant future……. Science has triumphed over death. Nobody would now die for all the time to come. Even more, scientists have dispensed away with the notion of a physical body. Now living beings can exist as ideas full of happiness and joy. This joy is the pure joy of blissful existence. No kind of strife that results from duality will be present. Wouldn’t the scientists prefer such a state of being? Now, come to the present…… If you get a chance to experience this state of eternal bliss and non-duality (where every kind of living being exists as a single pure blissful idea without strife of any kind), would you prefer it? It does not mean that you will get all the answers and there will be no more questions. Actually, after the attainment of such a mode of living, no further knowledge is required at all. Even if any kind of knowledge is required, its goal is the sustenance of such a state of being. And………… Belief in such an ideal, belief in such a mode of existence (call it God or simply bliss), does arise in you something that propels you towards this ideal. This feeling creates in you love for each and all. It takes away your fear of death. It is not something short lived or without stages. It’s a long process where you delve into this state of blissful existence, step by step. To be honest, some people may not reach such a state even after hard efforts. This does not mean that this state does not exist. It only means that we have to ask questions from this very ideal itself by delving deep into ourselves. Definitions aren't simple semantics. I don't have to couch this in opinion, this is fact. Without definitions that are agreed upon, we're talking about different things. It's pointless. You can't redefine words and expect everyone to accept your redefinitions while talking to you. I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate. Edited June 13, 2014 by Deepak Kapur
KenBrace Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I have two theories for the nature of God (if it/he/she exists in the first place). The first idea is that God is an immensely intelligent being that is comparable to humans and ants. Pretty simple. The second idea (which I favor over the first one) is that God is the universe. In the same way that a cell's universe is you, your universe is God. We are as capable of comprehending his existence as a cell is to comprehending ours. Without our cells, we have no existence. The same goes for God. The idea that God is infinitely more intelligent and aware than us, but also loves us like his own children is ridiculous. Would you give your son's life for the life of one of your cells?
dimreepr Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I have two theories for the nature of God (if it/he/she exists in the first place). The first idea is that God is an immensely intelligent being that is comparable to humans and ants. Pretty simple. The second idea (which I favor over the first one) is that God is the universe. In the same way that a cell's universe is you, your universe is God. We are as capable of comprehending his existence as a cell is to comprehending ours. Without our cells, we have no existence. The same goes for God. The idea that God is infinitely more intelligent and aware than us, but also loves us like his own children is ridiculous. Would you give your son's life for the life of one of your cells? There is a third way.
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