Guys, there are three of you swamping me with replies. I'm taking a break for dinner. Will come back later. peace and love, bowser
Yes, I have, many times and deeply so. OTOH I am also able to compartmentalize different aspect of life and living.
Most people I know view God as separate from the universe. As such, they view us as separate creations. (AKA - Independent of the larger picture.) Part of that previously mentioned baggage that comes with the word "God".
But I have already given my argument I find the Universe a wonderful place - is not a argument. Statement yes. Argument no Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
These were all offered as examples of things, other than the subject of God, that empiricism is epistemologically challenged by. IOW they are things that struggle at an epistemological level, as opposed to something like a mere lack of cultivation or advancement of knowledge. Yes. That, I would argue, is the entire subject and focus of religion. Not in the sense you are probably alluding to. I guess at this stage, the analogy is starting to fall away since the Andaman islsnders are mere victims of geography as a foremost contribution to their isolation (as opposed to being relegated or awarded such an existence on account of their desire or through the superior arrangement of the sovereign powers they are under). But what you are indicating more or less is true. If we want to examine the ultimate substance of a religious institution (as the concamitant element that instills ideas of God in society), it is not its money, or politics or even its philosophy but its saintly practitioners that are the ultimate "assets" and determine whatever is forthcoming in the bust and boom cycles of God consciousness (commonly identified by religion) as it appears in society. Its kind of like being something like a gold miner. The more precisely you can qualify what you are looking for, the easier it becomes to look for it in the right places and the stronger the liklihood of encountering large reserves of it. If you just head out to the backyard with a pick axe or backhoe, you may strike it lucky but it will probably be a lengthy process. As mentioned earlier, its the primary function of religion, to establish the ways, means and instances of connecting to God or make advancement in that regard. You might have to be more specific in order for me to reply in a way that is valid. I'm pretty sure you are already familiar with the themes of duality presented by various religions and prescriptive systems of do's and do not's, similar to a regimen for a diseased person, that are means to elevate a person to a higher standard (as opposed to means unto themselves).
That would be contrary to Bowser's contention, that And which one of these two interpretations is the God of Scripture?
The short answer (which ended up a bit longer than I anticipated ...) is that it is a problem answered by self realization. Of course that sounds like an esoteric claim, and perhaps it is if you want to jump in on the top rungs of that position, but it is also framed by philosophy, world view etc, which tends to be the playing field for any ideas of self. IOW ideas of self are very much connected to our ideas of the world, reality, purpose, etc ... so, regardless of who we are and what our views on self are, we kind of buy into an ontological "package deal" (as opposed to a piecemeal smorgasboard), which in turn give us a range of specific behaviours, goals etc. So our ideas of self are very much connected to our ideas of the world and vice versa and all of this is cemented and held together by our activities. For instance, the task of getting a drug addict off drugs is not as simple as telling them it is bad or unhealthy or destructive. Infact they probably have greater realization of those things than a non addict (often they even romanticize it). If you want to talk about what a drug addict has to "know" in order to stop using, it is a complex answer of viewing the self in relation to the world. Part of it involves seeing the world and their own self as it "really is" (if we can agree that a life of addiction is an inferior standard of reality) and another involves seeing what clouds or complicates that vision of reality. And its not a black and white position of knowledge. There are a whole spectrum of positions that reflect the intensity that they can or cannot hold such a view of the self/world, identifiable by (and to a large extent, controlled by) their behaviour. So in the beginning, such knowledge can be driven by the mere idea that a certain self/world view is but a "good idea", but when behaviours also come around behind and support that, it changes from a mere idea to an actual position. IOW it is not a position of knowledge that just requires philosophy or "new information", but rather words backed up by action. To go back to the drug addict, they never "know" what the "real world" is for as long as they are unable to bring a certain standard of behaviour to the table. In the same way, discerning the self as distinct from matter requires a bit of perserverence. The general principle is that such a position of "knowledge" is actually the constitutional natural position of a living entity. IOW this dualistic position of a self in a body is a temporary imposition brought about by behaviour, desire, etc. Its just like when a person reawakens from a coma. They don't "become" something, rather they "reclaim" something from an inferior position. I tried to answer all this above . Its kind of like the matrix (which, interestingly enough, drew on the upanisads for source material). Through a superior imposition, a superior existence is rendered inferior. If he decided to reject either the red pill or the blue pill and work things out for himself (aka the enpirical approach), how would that have worked out for him? The irony of this existence is that something that is not matter (ie, life) has been relegated to the realm of matter. Its just like our hapless matrix hero sifting through what is a computer simulation of life, trying to unplug himself from the reality of his comatose state hooked up to a machine (granted, Hollywood could make it happen, but hopefully you see the point) Or "superior agency". Due to a qualitative distinction between God and the living entity, God has a relationship with both spirit (life) and matter that the living entity doesn't. God controls these two things. The living entity is controlled by them If you want to talk about "justified assumptions" you are talking about world views, behaviours ... the whole ontological package we have already "bought" in to, etc. It is not just simply a "telling" (descending) system of knowledge or the opposite, empirical (ascending). Technically it is a descending system with the added prerequisite of concomitant behaviours. This is distinct from empiricism, which has no such provision (you could be a paedophile murderer, a drunkard or a nobel peace award winner or all of the above, but provided you can hold the telescope around the right way, empiricism will deliver the goods). If someone tells you that you will feel relief from hunger by eating, but you do not eat, you will not know it. If you get offered the red pill in the matrix, but take the blue pill, you will not be part of triology. You may think, "Hey, empiricism is better, I can do whatever the hell I want and get to the "objective truth", but that mode of investigation comes prepackaged with a glass ceiling. Con't ....
..... con't Much like the matrix, unless there is someone to come down from the "natural" position, unfettered to whatever illusion the fed brain was being fed, how else would you know? Your very example is more or less what is proposed to be occurring. The only difference is that you are imagining God as some extrapolated version of ourselves, struggling with an empirical universe, as opposed to a superior being who has such a universe on his beck and call .... and also that the simulated, illusory existence offers a grander field of expression, existence and fulfillment than what a brain in a tub would conceivably have on offer. God is simply providing us with options to be happy. If we choose a type of happiness that is technically impossible, it has to be managed through the medium of illusion and simulation. On account of our constitutional position, any sort of attempt to pursue artificial happiness is met with limitations, so you could say that behind such a simulation is a subtle computer coding attempting to bring us over the learning curve ... it might just take a couple (or maybe a couple thousand) universal devastations for things to start falling in to place for us. I guess we can only hope. You are not going to get that knowledge. You will not "understand" things as God does. But that said, you are welcome to investigate how life sits within this cradle of matter. I don't doubt that you can and have learnt many valuable things.
Yeah, that is the problem. We grow up as isolated creatures, and it often starts with religion. It's sad that people spend their lives trying to join with God while all along they were never apart. Always looking elsewhere for answers.
I don't really view it as an argument. You can accept or reject the premise that God is all. There is no penalty for not seeing.
Listening is participation. There was a garage band playing on the streets of downtown today. I listened and felt it all at the same time.
Yet you put it forward in those words Wonder if the person who walks over a cliff in the dark thinks that I can hear my washing machine but I am not in conversation with it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes Post #453 Yes Still only hear noise. Nothing like conversation Anyway I am fed up with the stupidity of your evasion. I admit you do a good job of a Jan sock puppet And you can join him on Iggy (CLICK)
The Father of what or whom? Certainly not the Father of Jesus. By God's own law a woman cannot conceive a male child unless male sperm is involved in conception. If Jesus was conceived by a virgin, he would have to have been female and a clone of Mary.
Also contrary to most people's concept of god - more of that baggage. Most people associate ideas of salvation and redemption with acceptance of god.
I think it is more about surrendering to God. Doing so releases a person from the past and the future.
