User Controls
I denied God today.
-
2018-01-02 at 5:08 PM UTC
-
2018-01-02 at 5:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws You could argue that and I can’t disprove it, but it would mean gott is not all-knowing.
idk. is being all knowing a must have criteria for being a gott ???
in my religion, paganism, gotts are not necessarily all knowing. they might be experts in their fields, but not all knowing as far as i could recall. -
2018-01-02 at 5:37 PM UTC
-
2018-01-02 at 6:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Never said it was. But the majority of theists do believe in an all-knowing god. All abrahamic religions for example.
you do know that their only 3 abrahamic religion while their like a dozen of other religions out there rite ???
so its only a minority of religions that have omniscient gott. -
2018-01-02 at 6:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader you do know that their only 3 abrahamic religion while their like a dozen of other religions out there rite ???
so its only a minority of religions that have omniscient gott.
There are literally thousands of religions, not dozens. But over 60% of religious people in the world subscribe to one of the Abrahamic faiths. I’m sure there are plenty of other non-Abrahamic religions that believe in an omniscient god as well.
Are you actually this fucking stupid? I always thought the dumb shit you say was just part of some kind of sad, years-long trolling game. Is your brain damaged from too many drugs or something? -
2018-01-02 at 6:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws There are literally thousands of religions, not dozens. But over 60% of religious people in the world subscribe to one of the Abrahamic faiths. I’m sure there are plenty of other non-Abrahamic religions that believe in an omniscient god as well.
Are you actually this fucking stupid? I always thought the dumb shit you say was just part of some kind of sad, years-long trolling game. Is your brain damaged from too many drugs or something?
maybe.
hard to tell. -
2018-01-02 at 6:29 PM UTCAnd change your fuckin avatar
-
2018-01-02 at 6:31 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-02 at 6:54 PM UTC
-
2018-01-02 at 7:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I disagree because I don’t believe in god and I also don’t believe in causal determinism. I believe that there is an element of randomness that manifests in the universe on a macroscopic level, which influences the events that we encounter in our individual lives, and thus how we react during those events, thus affecting future events. If that doesn’t constitute a “self” I dunno what does.
I don't understand how you could attribute your will or your sense of self to randomness. Imagine if all your actions, intentions beliefs and desires were generated randomly. If your "free will" or sense of self was due to truly random events wouldn't you behave in an unpredictable and erratic way? You would scarcely seem to have a mind at all. You would live as if you were blown about by the wind. Actions, intentions, beliefs and desires can exist only in a system that is significantly constrained by patterns of behavior and the laws of stimulus-response. While I agree that the universe is not entirely deterministic, it is in every sense relevant to human behavior. -
2018-01-02 at 7:14 PM UTCdeterminism is sooo 2017
-
2018-01-03 at 1:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I don't understand how you could attribute your will or your sense of self to randomness. Imagine if all your actions, intentions beliefs and desires were generated randomly. If your "free will" or sense of self was due to truly random events wouldn't you behave in an unpredictable and erratic way? You would scarcely seem to have a mind at all. You would live as if you were blown about by the wind. Actions, intentions, beliefs and desires can exist only in a system that is significantly constrained by patterns of behavior and the laws of stimulus-response. While I agree that the universe is not entirely deterministic, it is in every sense relevant to human behavior.
Without randomness, the “self” would just be a bunch of matter stuck together moving through space on a predetermined path. But the ability of an individual to change future events is just one criteria of what I consider the “self”.
But let’s get on the same page here, what would you define as the “self”? Like how would you describe a hypothetical being that is capable of having a “self” that is not an “illusion”? -
2018-01-03 at 1:41 PM UTCSelf... self... self... I don't buy it. And you say to me, self, I say... yes... who's... phhtt...
Yeah, self. I got bigger fish to fry.
-
2018-01-03 at 1:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Without randomness, the “self” would just be a bunch of matter stuck together moving through space on a predetermined path. But the ability of an individual to change future events is just one criteria of what I consider the “self”.
But let’s get on the same page here, what would you define as the “self”? Like how would you describe a hypothetical being that is capable of having a “self” that is not an “illusion”?
I don't understand how randomness can be something you identify your self with any more than your DNA or the shape of your brain. All of those things shape who you are, I don't see how random events are "more you" than casual events. Even including randomness, your "self" is still just a bunch of matter moving though space. You have no more freedom or control over that stuff whether the path is random or predetermined.
I would say your self is what you think you are. When you think about who you are, what do you think about? Thats what we call the self. -
2018-01-03 at 1:51 PM UTCThere's only one way to settle this, Obbe and Fox.
A Shakashuri Blowdown! -
2018-01-03 at 2:07 PM UTCAgain, the ability of an individual to influence future events is just one criteria for what I think of as the self. In addition to that, I also believe that we are more than just our DNA, or our brain structure, or a collection of stimulus-responses.
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I would say your self is what you think you are. When you think about who you are, what do you think about? Thats what we call the self.
So how does that explain how the self is an illusion. By your definition, I can just say that when I think about my self, I think it’s not an illusion. There, it’s not an illusion now. Because I thought it. -
2018-01-03 at 3:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws So how does that explain how the self is an illusion. By your definition, I can just say that when I think about my self, I think it’s not an illusion. There, it’s not an illusion now. Because I thought it.
You can think whatever you want, doesn't make it real.
If you become aware that you are all of your own body, and that the beating of your heart is not just something that happens to you, but something you’re doing, then you become aware also in the same moment and at the same time that you’re not only beating your heart, but that you are shining the sun.
Why? Because the process of your bodily existence and its rhythms is a process, an energy system which is continuous with the shining of the sun, just like riveris a continuous energy system, and all the waves in it are activities of the whole river, and that’s continuous with the Atlantic Ocean, and that’s all one energy system and finally the Atlantic ocean gets around to being the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, etc., and so all the waters of the Earth are a continuous energy system.
But an illusion is a subjective experience that is not what it seems. Illusions are experiences in the mind, but they are not out there in nature. Rather, they are events generated by the brain. Most of us have an experience of a self. I certainly have one, and I do not doubt that others do as well – an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of free will. But that experience is an illusion – it does not exist independently of the person having the experience, and it is certainly not what it seems.
For most of us, the sense of our self is as an integrated individual inhabiting a body. I think it helps to compare the experience of self to subjective contours – illusions such as the Kanizsa pattern where you see an invisible shape that is really defined entirely by the surrounding context. People understand that it is a trick of the mind but what they may not appreciate is that the brain is actually generating the neural activation as if the illusory shape was really there. In other words, the brain is hallucinating the experience. There are now many studies revealing that illusions generate brain activity as if they existed. They are not real but the brain treats them as if they were.
Now that line of reasoning could be applied to all perception except that not all perception is an illusion. There are real shapes out there in the world and other physical regularities that generate reliable states in the minds of others. The reason that the status of reality cannot be applied to the self, is that it does not exist independently of my brain alone that is having the experience. It may appear to have a consistency of regularity and stability that makes it seem real, but those properties alone do not make it so.
