Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It strikes me as simian arrogance to declare another species' existence to be "worthless" (and that's putting aside their contribution to the natural environment).

Then, why not act accordingly and make desire for food, relay on own suffering and suffering of others and end, or stive at least for refined existance, nourishing on joy beyond sensuality, blamless, harmess? By only wishing and merely demanding, one still wouldn't see one's own outcome of deeds, eats. What does good householder rejoice on when touched by nephew and dog? Aren't they just his food for sensual joy. And when apart reason for suffering? What could he give them not taken from others at first place, real own? It requires right conceit to overcome conceit, and nothing then there to blame, if one has gained total release like the Arahats.

Whatever, young simian, I have made my point that human lives are not the only ones that matter.

The topic is about that, good householder, and wise if not sacrificing and associating downwardly, but upwardly.

Where could there be prosperity if only seeing equal and lower (easier to let one feel comfortable, sacrificing downwardly)? Who would even recognise the goodness of his first gods, ones parents?

Your issue, young simian, is that it is perfectly possible to appreciate that which is greater than you without spitting on those below, treating them as worthless. That, young simian, would be the approach of a tyrant.

[Phil222]

If the coin lands on its side and then decides to fall in either direction then probably god is testing your strengths and weaknesses. If you would make a good ruler and create heaven on earth would hell exist on earth? Accidents or natural disasters are unavoidable but can't drive one to fall on the side of hell unless one so chooses. Heaven on earth would identify that person as a martyr and make the wise decision to remember the actions that were brought about. One eye in the future body in the present and one eye in the future. Selfishness gives rise to bad thoughts when you could make someones day better or worse. Everybody is judging everybody all the time so make the right decision or don't to compromise your self and others preservation of mind to next. Heaven on earth is possible...its real..world peace and the end of racism is the idea!!! Believe in eachother and heaven/enlightenment is in so many cultures and religions its real. Hell even robots can go to cybernetic heaven... why cant you actively and cociously plug yourself into a mainframe in future and become the creator... you wouldnt be hurting anybody but yourself through your actions and mind. You'd have to program a sleep mode or eternal rest button. Living forever isn't for everybody but peace is.

[dattaswami]

If the coin lands on its side and then decides to fall in either direction then probably god is testing your strengths and weaknesses. If you would make a good ruler and create heaven on earth would hell exist on earth? Accidents or natural disasters are unavoidable but can't drive one to fall on the side of hell unless one so chooses. Heaven on earth would identify that person as a martyr and make the wise decision to remember the actions that were brought about. One eye in the future body in the present and one eye in the future. Selfishness gives rise to bad thoughts when you could make someones day better or worse. Everybody is judging everybody all the time so make the right decision or don't to compromise your self and others preservation of mind to next. Heaven on earth is possible...its real..world peace and the end of racism is the idea!!! Believe in eachother and heaven/enlightenment is in so many cultures and religions its real. Hell even robots can go to cybernetic heaven... why cant you actively and cociously plug yourself into a mainframe in future and become the creator... you wouldnt be hurting anybody but yourself through your actions and mind. You'd have to program a sleep mode or eternal rest button. Living forever isn't for everybody but peace is.

Leaving the concept of the central Lord, who is the ruler of the souls, breathing exercises (Pranayama), meditation upon the soul, self-realization etc., are only beating around the bush. Without the logical establishment of the concept of one God in all the religions, Universal Spirituality, one family of all the human beings, world peace etc., are only the illusory castles or the real castles built upon the ground without the foundation. All such aims will be either unreal or temporary realities only in practice. One may achieve the oneness of the human beings temporarily during the time of his preaching the audience. Such oneness is like the oneness of human beings achieved during the deep sleep of all the human beings for which, no trace of preaching is required.

When you ask all to love each other without hatred, it is impractical in the practical life of ordinary human beings. The preacher is a saint and has no interaction with society that can lead to anger and hatred. But I am an employee doing My duties sincerely without any trace of corruption. But, several ignorant people are angry with Me for not favoring them and become My enemies in spite of My several appeals. It is easy to preach the Universal Brotherhood for a saint, but it is impossible to practice it for an ordinary employee in the world. What is the solution for this? The only solution is to attack this issue at the level of intelligence by analysis and there is no use of attempting at the level of mind with love and appeal. The intelligence (Buddhi) is the driver of the body (Vehicle) and leads the soul (Owner).

You have to guide the driver and not the inert vehicle or the incapable owner. If you can establish the concept of one God in all religions and convince all the drivers of the human bodies, the unity and peace is sure to come forever. You can realize this point with the help of a small example. You take a group of devotees having the common form of God like Krishna or Jesus. All of them get strongly united and all of them fear to harm any other devotee because their common God will punish them for the sin. A Christian will fear deeply to harm another Christian but will not care so much to harm a follower of other religion.

The reason is that in harming another Christian, he is sure of the punishment from Jesus. But, when he harms a person of other religion, he does not fear so much since he has no faith in that form of God of other religion. He believes only Jesus as the only absolute God. Laden tried to kill Christians and Hindus in America because, he believes in Allah only as the God. For this basic reason only he never attempted to kill people in any Muslim country. I am not referring to anyone particularly. This is a common disease of all the ignorant people present in any religion. Suppose Laden believed in the Universal Spirituality and realized that Jesus and Krishna are also other forms of the same Allah, will he do such crime to the people of other religions? This question applies not only to Laden but also applies to all fanatic Ladens present in all religions.

Some preachers want to bring world peace by expressing love through embracing devotees similar to the embracing of people on holy festival. Any one can do such things and the problems opposing Universal Spirituality are not so simple since they are at the deep intellectual level. Some preachers ask the devotees to close the eyes and slowly give some statements so that they can get rid off the strenuous thoughts. All these are psychological treatments of medical science and have no divinity. The feeling of God and love to Him is the most powerful healer of all the stress and also will solve the causes of problems in the world. People say that they should ask God only for anything, since there is no alternative for them. This is a sugar-coated mischief. If you have so much love and respect to God, why are you not following the instructions given by God and avoid the sins? Even if the atmosphere drags you, you must control yourself at the end.

Krishna promised that He would not use any weapon in the war. But, when Bhishma wounded Him, He took His chakra and ran to kill Bhishma. This shows the effect of the practical situation but finally Krishna controlled Himself and returned back. Similarly, Jesus was ready for the arrest but His body started shaking and He prayed God to stop the arrest if possible. This shows the effect of the practical situation. But finally He controlled Himself and told God to do as per His will only. Hanuman tore His heart with His own nails to show Rama. This shows the absence of any disturbance in practical implementation. Either you should resist the effect of practical situation in the beginning itself like Hanuman or resist its effect atleast after sometime like Krishna and Jesus. This is the message of these three incidents

. Either the firm determination without any disturbance or atleast the firm determination after some disturbance should come either in Pravrutti or Nivrutti. If the determination is defeated by disturbance as in the case of Arjuna, who wanted to withdraw from the war, only the complete analysis of spiritual knowledge (the Gita) can give the firm determination and no other method like breathing exercise or embracing Arjuna or singing songs can remove the ignorance that is covering the intelligence.

[Sy Borg]

God exists in people's minds. It is an ancient meme that is so ingrained that it has shaped the way human brains have developed over generations (as does any powerful environmental or social influence).

Heaven and hell, likewise, are states of mind, achievable in life. A starving mother in a refugee camp unable to produce milk to feed her dying baby is in hell. Those leading happy, relatively uneventful lives are in heaven.

The probability of these things existing in any other ways would be exceedingly low, low enough to be disregarded.

[Paul91]

God exists in people's minds. It is an ancient meme that is so ingrained that it has shaped the way human brains have developed over generations (as does any powerful environmental or social influence).

Heaven and hell, likewise, are states of mind, achievable in life. A starving mother in a refugee camp unable to produce milk to feed her dying baby is in hell. Those leading happy, relatively uneventful lives are in heaven.

The probability of these things existing in any other ways would be exceedingly low, low enough to be disregarded.

I find it interesting to look at the etymology of words for original meaning. The Greek "pisteos" is translated as "faith" in the New Testament. Pistis, in Greek mythology was the personification of "good faith, trust and reliability" - wiki. Her Roman equivalent was Fides (fidelity). According to Wiktionary, the root of the Latin "fides" means "to trust". So, it seems like "faith in God" is not something involved with probability. It is representative of a strong bond. So I say it would involve more than belief. It would be like asking "Do you have faith that your Mother loves you?" instead of asking "What are the odds that your Mother loves you?".

My question would be: Is faith in God a delusion? If so, can we say the same about love for another person? The only difference lies in the identification of an entity within our awareness to have a relationship with. But is the bond itself closer to the "real deal"?

Another question that could be asked is "What do you trust the most in this world?". If we seriously ponder this question, I think one could fall into radical skepticism. Is there anything that can be truly held onto? Was Descartes onto something?

[Sy Borg]

My question would be: Is faith in God a delusion? If so, can we say the same about love for another person? The only difference lies in the identification of an entity within our awareness to have a relationship with. But is the bond itself closer to the "real deal"?

Another question that could be asked is "What do you trust the most in this world?". If we seriously ponder this question, I think one could fall into radical skepticism. Is there anything that can be truly held onto? Was Descartes onto something?

Love for another person is obviously not a delusion. Whether God is a delusion depends on a person's conception. If they see God as being something that contradicts evolution, the big bang and other aspects of science, that would be delusional. If they accept that God is a subjective and personal phenomenon, operating in a different arena to science, I see no delusionality.

Who do I trust most? It depends, whether that's trusting reliability or trusting whether someone is on my side?

[Paul91]

My question would be: Is faith in God a delusion? If so, can we say the same about love for another person? The only difference lies in the identification of an entity within our awareness to have a relationship with. But is the bond itself closer to the "real deal"?

Another question that could be asked is "What do you trust the most in this world?". If we seriously ponder this question, I think one could fall into radical skepticism. Is there anything that can be truly held onto? Was Descartes onto something?

Love for another person is obviously not a delusion. Whether God is a delusion depends on a person's conception. If they see God as being something that contradicts evolution, the big bang and other aspects of science, that would be delusional. If they accept that God is a subjective and personal phenomenon, operating in a different arena to science, I see no delusionality.

Who do I trust most? It depends, whether that's trusting reliability or trusting whether someone is on my side?

I agree with you.

I'm going through a process of realising absolute certainty. It's interesting, because it's already there. It's the common thread throughout all experience.

I think WHAT do you trust the most is a more interesting question. What truly is that which you cannot doubt? Is it absolute? Is it relative? Does it change? Are there any assumptions involved?

I think if you come from the perspective of truth, everything should be without doubt. Therefore, there would be no fear or suffering.

In terms of God, one's perspective should not involve contradiction. If it does, this is denial of reality.

[skeptic]

Love for another person is obviously not a delusion. Whether God is a delusion depends on a person's conception. If they see God as being something that contradicts evolution, the big bang and other aspects of science, that would be delusional. If they accept that God is a subjective and personal phenomenon, operating in a different arena to science, I see no delusionality.

My belief in God and creation, contradicting evolution and the big bang theories, makes me delusional? Funny, I really thought of it as the other way around.

[dattaswami]

God exists in people's minds. It is an ancient meme that is so ingrained that it has shaped the way human brains have developed over generations (as does any powerful environmental or social influence).

Heaven and hell, likewise, are states of mind, achievable in life. A starving mother in a refugee camp unable to produce milk to feed her dying baby is in hell. Those leading happy, relatively uneventful lives are in heaven.

The probability of these things existing in any other ways would be exceedingly low, low enough to be disregarded.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God.

God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

[Sy Borg]

God exists in people's minds. It is an ancient meme that is so ingrained that it has shaped the way human brains have developed over generations (as does any powerful environmental or social influence).

Heaven and hell, likewise, are states of mind, achievable in life. A starving mother in a refugee camp unable to produce milk to feed her dying baby is in hell. Those leading happy, relatively uneventful lives are in heaven.

The probability of these things existing in any other ways would be exceedingly low, low enough to be disregarded.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God.

God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa).

To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

Still, the question remains, why add God to the mix? Isn't there enough out there already to attempt to fathom without adding a speculative and theoretical layer that perhaps requires even more explanation than everything else?

Current thinking leans towards vacuum energy being the bedrock of reality. So I think of the ultimate cause as self-generated, based on random fluctuations in vacuum energy. From there, organisation will naturally happen. How?

Whatever entities emerge in reality - be it primordial or modern - will exist for a certain amount of time. It's not all the same. It makes sense that, over vast tracts of time, the universe would come to be ever more populated with durable entities.

Entities that last the longest tend to be the biggest (up to a certain point) or the most organised (up to a certain point). Being of significant size or having a strong digestive system will delay entropic effects. Having brains helps too, with intelligent beings able to put themselves in situations that maximise their resources and safety.

Imagining that God exist would have helped many to survive too. For example, given the infant and child mortality rates of history, women of the past needed to get over the heartbreak in order to raise their young to reproductive age, to continue their line. The crushing sadness of losing a child could easily rob a parent of motivation, but if they have faith that their dead loved one is in Heaven, then that can give them the fortitude to carry on. The strength or religion, as with the military, is its capacity to get people to "gird their lions", to hang tough.

[Paul91]

Still, the question remains, why add God to the mix? Isn't there enough out there already to attempt to fathom without adding a speculative and theoretical layer that perhaps requires even more explanation than everything else?

Current thinking leans towards vacuum energy being the bedrock of reality. So I think of the ultimate cause as self-generated, based on random fluctuations in vacuum energy. From there, organisation will naturally happen. How?

Whatever entities emerge in reality - be it primordial or modern - will exist for a certain amount of time. It's not all the same. It makes sense that, over vast tracts of time, the universe would come to be ever more populated with durable entities.

Entities that last the longest tend to be the biggest (up to a certain point) or the most organised (up to a certain point). Being of significant size or having a strong digestive system will delay entropic effects. Having brains helps too, with intelligent beings able to put themselves in situations that maximise their resources and safety.

Imagining that God exist would have helped many to survive too. For example, given the infant and child mortality rates of history, women of the past needed to get over the heartbreak in order to raise their young to reproductive age, to continue their line. The crushing sadness of losing a child could easily rob a parent of motivation, but if they have faith that their dead loved one is in Heaven, then that can give them the fortitude to carry on. The strength or religion, as with the military, is its capacity to get people to "gird their lions", to hang tough.

What if God is what you feel is the most certain thing in your life? Would not that which is most certain in your life be the ruler of your life? Perhaps we haven't realised this absolute certainty to conceptually explain it without fault or misunderstanding. If you regard your own existence as most certain, would you not be considered an egoist? If you are not certain of anything, then cannot everything perceived be mere illusion? There needs to be common ground on what God is, and how to realise this, if at all possible.

[Sy Borg]

I am not one of those to declare everything an illusion. All that does is dilute the meaning of the word "illusion".

So I think a lot of things definitely exist, at least within the limits of perception and cognition, but God is not one of them. I see God an an anthropomorphism. The phenomena are present - peak experiences, moments of great instinct - but they are not Yahweh.

So, Kant notwithstanding, I think that we perceive real phenomena, albeit incompletely, and this is the case for all species. In terms of evolution, we all have mental filters that allow us to most effectively reproduce viable offspring.

[Paul91]

I am not one of those to declare everything an illusion. All that does is dilute the meaning of the word "illusion".

So I think a lot of things definitely exist, at least within the limits of perception and cognition, but God is not one of them. I see God an an anthropomorphism. The phenomena are present - peak experiences, moments of great instinct - but they are not Yahweh.

So, Kant notwithstanding, I think that we perceive real phenomena, albeit incompletely, and this is the case for all species. In terms of evolution, we all have mental filters that allow us to most effectively reproduce viable offspring.

Yes, but in a Cartesian sense, is there a solid foundation to our experience? And what exactly is it? Phenomena is dependent, is it not? Is that why you say it's incomplete? Or, do you mean our perception of reality is not in "full focus"? Is there not an essence that is present in all experience? If we truly die, there is no subjective experience at all. I find that more unfathomable.

[Sy Borg]

I am not one of those to declare everything an illusion. All that does is dilute the meaning of the word "illusion".

So I think a lot of things definitely exist, at least within the limits of perception and cognition, but God is not one of them. I see God an an anthropomorphism. The phenomena are present - peak experiences, moments of great instinct - but they are not Yahweh.

So, Kant notwithstanding, I think that we perceive real phenomena, albeit incompletely, and this is the case for all species. In terms of evolution, we all have mental filters that allow us to most effectively reproduce viable offspring.

Yes, but in a Cartesian sense, is there a solid foundation to our experience? And what exactly is it? Phenomena is dependent, is it not? Is that why you say it's incomplete? Or, do you mean our perception of reality is not in "full focus"? Is there not an essence that is present in all experience? If we truly die, there is no subjective experience at all. I find that more unfathomable.

I don't ascribe to Cartesian dualism. I think Descartes got it wrong. It should have been "I am an intelligent animal, therefore I think". The guy was so off-beam that used to cut up living dogs in public displays because he did not believe that they actually felt pain, due to lack of a human soul. A sad and appalling mistake by him.

Yes, I did mean "incomplete" as in "not in full focus". In terms of natural selection, brains are very expensive energetically. Our brains make up about 2% of our body mass but they draw about 20% of the energy we consume.

Further, imagine if you could perceive everything - every gas in the air, every magnetic wave, hearing insects and birds munching, seeing atoms and so forth. My guess is that, if we could see and hear everything around us, our eyes would be filled with blinding light and ears would be overloaded by a constant din. Interestingly, this is what some people describe after being brought back after almost dying - they find reality to be both blinding and deafening until their re-acclimatise. Thus, our senses only pick up that which had helped our ancestors to pass on their genes and our brain has its own limits.

As for no subjective experience, sure you can imagine it. You crave a lack of subjective experience every night and, if you don't get it, you will have physical and mental difficulties.

People love their nightly oblivion and, eventually, we all go to sleep and don't wake up, hence the term "Rest in peace". Oblivion is really, really peaceful! ;)

There may be some intense death dreams as the brain is dying but, once the brain oxygen goes, it does not appear that there is a future. After all, what the future after death for a blue-tongued lizard or a koala? I'd say, the same as us. The only way would be if there are other dimensions, and that these dimensions contain the ground for eternal life.

But would you really want eternal life, for your mind to keep continuing through all the death and loss and grief and illnesses and cruelty and suffering along the way until there's nothing solid left?

[Paul91]

I don't ascribe to Cartesian dualism. I think Descartes got it wrong. It should have been "I am an intelligent animal, therefore I think". The guy was so off-beam that used to cut up living dogs in public displays because he did not believe that they actually felt pain, due to lack of a human soul. A sad and appalling mistake by him.

Yes, I did mean "incomplete" as in "not in full focus". In terms of natural selection, brains are very expensive energetically. Our brains make up about 2% of our body mass but they draw about 20% of the energy we consume.

Further, imagine if you could perceive everything - every gas in the air, every magnetic wave, hearing insects and birds munching, seeing atoms and so forth. My guess is that, if we could see and hear everything around us, our eyes would be filled with blinding light and ears would be overloaded by a constant din. Interestingly, this is what some people describe after being brought back after almost dying - they find reality to be both blinding and deafening until their re-acclimatise. Thus, our senses only pick up that which had helped our ancestors to pass on their genes and our brain has its own limits.

As for no subjective experience, sure you can imagine it. You crave a lack of subjective experience every night and, if you don't get it, you will have physical and mental difficulties.

People love their nightly oblivion and, eventually, we all go to sleep and don't wake up, hence the term "Rest in peace". Oblivion is really, really peaceful!

There may be some intense death dreams as the brain is dying but, once the brain oxygen goes, it does not appear that there is a future. After all, what the future after death for a blue-tongued lizard or a koala? I'd say, the same as us. The only way would be if there are other dimensions, and that these dimensions contain the ground for eternal life.

But would you really want eternal life, for your mind to keep continuing through all the death and loss and grief and illnesses and cruelty and suffering along the way until there's nothing solid left?

I suppose in an ontological sense, is there a stable existence of anything? I'm certain I love my brother, however, there are times when our relationship is strained to the point where empirical evidence would suggest the contrary. Nothing has yet broken our bond, despite some frustrations on the surface.

If I wanted to get to know you, and I don't believe you truly exist (as much as I think I exist), then I believe you are nothing but a character in my dream state. So, there needs to be some "leap of faith" in order for me to form a recognisable connection that would also align with my reasoning that there are "other minds". Does that resonate with you?

There are many things in our experience which we cannot control. If we have no free will, then who are we to say we actually exist, let alone "other minds". Based on evidence, there is simply continually changing experience.

Yes, we definitely do not wish to have full perception of our reality, as it's not needed for our survival on this planet. That is a good point.

If you are happy about dying when "you time is up", then it may become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think "believers" desire eternal life, and so they by necessity have to form a relationship with the eternal.