Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Religion and Philosophy Thread

1356726

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited December 2018
    JLee said:

    @FinneousPJ Zen and Tao do not rely upon belief. In fact, belief is an impediment to understanding.

    Briefly, you are born with ordinary consciousness. This consciousness is nondual, there is no barrier between subject and object. Through conditioning by society and your parents you lose this ordinary consciousness and ego arises. The practice is to return to this ordinary consciousness through understanding of the ego (grasping and aversion) and a deep attention to the present moment. Zen and Tao both have profound insights into the workings of the mind. But it is nontheoretical (you must experience, there is no conceptualizing) and illogical. Logic is a mind defense. It is useful in the world, but not in your inner space nor in ultimate reality. Our fundamental being is awareness, a witnessing consciousness. Words, knowledge, the past all interfere with our experience of the only moment there is, now.

    There, I thoroughly botched that, I'm sure, but it is my understanding.

    I cannot really add to anything @BelgarathMTH said in his description of religion. Brilliant!

    As far as my own religious experience (I'll spoiler it so the uninterested are spared the WoT :smiley: )

    It occurred on July 9th, 2017. I call it that because of the way it made me feel. A series of events left me dwelling in the mire of all kinds of negative head spaces. On that day, my mind finally had enough and dropped out through no intention on my part. For the first time I experienced reality with no corresponding ego narrative. I had a two week break from my mental structure and it was wonderful. I just laughed and laughed. I found that everything I wanted, I already was. No wonder I could not find it! I was filled with compassion for all beings, including myself. It really was a trip. Also, I learned all about my conditioned responses and how much freedom of reaction I really have. Just because x happens, does not mean y has to follow. I could go on, but will let it rest there. It was the most authentic experience I have ever had.

    The only instruction I could find that speaks to experiences like that came from the east.

    While the peak experience went away, the results of that event are still with me. I only have two rituals. The first is to spend up to an hour in bed before rising, just resting in as pure a consciousness as I can experience, no conceptualizing, no thoughts, just breathing and being. I find this grounds me throughout the day and gives access to a lot of energy. Second, I try as hard as I can to bring my attention to the present moment. I drift and go away, but always try to bring myself back.


    Finally, Zen and Tao are so helpful in that they are firmly rooted in ordinary life. Ordinary moments are as vast as the universe. There is no need to go anywhere or do anything. Just give as much attention as you can to small things.
    Thanks for your answer. You say I must experience it for myself, but in order to justify spending the time, I need to verify the underlying assumptions. How might we find out whether there is an ultimate reality or that I have lost some ordinary consciousness? Is it true that if a child were not conditioned he would have no need of Zen and tao?

    Have you considered maybe what you experienced and felt wasn't real? Sounds like you had some kind of mental breakdown ("break from mental structure"). Why do you think what you experienced during that time is more real than with a healthy mind?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.

  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.
    I believe the same should be done with "logical" and "rational".

    Grond0GrammarsaladThacoBell
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited December 2018

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.
    That's not exactly what I was saying. In fact, the implication is that something like this is probably impossible. Any definition we give will likely not fit every religion. Or if it does, it will be so broad that it will include practices that are not religious. As such, it's best to let a particular religious community define their own practice.
    Artona said:

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.
    I believe the same should be done with "logical" and "rational".
    Lol, as for logic and rationality, that is also impossible. Logic is the 'easy' one, there. But, how to account for counterfactuals? Logic interacts weirdly with time or moral claims, suggesting that we should have a system of logics, rather than just a single logic. And then there is Quine. Actually, two dogmas touches on both logic and rationality. Anybody that is interested in the subject should slog through it:

    http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

    I really like section 6. It gives a very interesting framework of rationality that is very different from what you might expect. Even if you don't want to tangle with the first five sections--I wouldn't blame you--that is still worth reading

    Edit: Here's a link to some material that Quine would not approve of

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

    JLee
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012
    @Grammarsalad - this was exact article I had in mind when I raised questions about logic and rationality. :)
    And I agree that it's worth reading.

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    Artona said:

    @Grammarsalad - this was exact article I had in mind when I raised questions about logic and rationality. :)
    And I agree that it's worth reading.

    I agree with your agreement!

    Artona
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.
    That's not exactly what I was saying. In fact, the implication is that something like this is probably impossible. Any definition we give will likely not fit every religion. Or if it does, it will be so broad that it will include practices that are not religious. As such, it's best to let a particular religious community define their own practice.
    If you can't define what you mean when you say religion, it's better to not use that word. I'm not saying you should find a definition that fits every religion.

  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 648



    Thanks for your answer. You say I must experience it for myself, but in order to justify spending the time, I need to verify the underlying assumptions. How might we find out whether there is an ultimate reality or that I have lost some ordinary consciousness? Is it true that if a child were not conditioned he would have no need of Zen and tao?

    Have you considered maybe what you experienced and felt wasn't real? Sounds like you had some kind of mental breakdown ("break from mental structure"). Why do you think what you experienced during that time is more real than with a healthy mind?

    I understand your point of view. Time is precious and I get not wanting to waste it. I need to be more careful with my words. Ultimate reality makes it sound different than everyday reality, but it isn't. It is just a difference of awareness.

    Think about the wonder of a child. They experience reality quite differently than adults. As we get older we adopt many shortcuts. We glance over a scene and think "bus", "tree", "crowd." As a matter of efficiency, unless something out of the ordinary catches our attention, our minds fill in all the blanks and don't really pay attention. A child is typically a lot more observant and will catch details that adults gloss over out of habit.

    The difference between a child's experience of ordinary consciousness and a zen master's is only a matter of being aware of it. A very young child has a pure consciousness but lacks awareness. The end result of the practice is to experience this consciousness with total awareness. Buddhists and Hindus call this samadhi. At this point you maintain awareness even when sleeping.

    Regarding my own experience, I can only say is that it felt like waking up. When you wake up from a dream you don't question which state is more real. That's the way it felt to me.

    FinneousPJBelgarathMTH
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    I just found this, and am putting it out here for everyone to read.

    Here Are 3 Examples of Christian Privilege – And How You Can Challenge It

    https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/examples-christian-privilege/?fbclid=IwAR2FU6i46sIanrboYQw9WwO3V7_5XajJ3mI3fYzta_HxQVCZPolr46BTemI
    I don't usually think of Christians as having privilege, but they do, similar to the privilege of being white, cis-hetero and male. This article opened my eyes to that- and I'm not even Christian any more.

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited December 2018

    A given religion is defined by the adherents of that religion. If it's about supernatural being(s) for them, then it's about supernatural beings. If it's about realizing ones own inner divinity for them, then that's what it's about. If they emphasize belief, then it's about belief. If they emphasize praxis, then it's about praxis.

    I agree. Anyone using ambiguous terms like "religion" or "spiritual" etc. should define them in his post in order to avoid confusion.
    That's not exactly what I was saying. In fact, the implication is that something like this is probably impossible. Any definition we give will likely not fit every religion. Or if it does, it will be so broad that it will include practices that are not religious. As such, it's best to let a particular religious community define their own practice.
    If you can't define what you mean when you say religion, it's better to not use that word. I'm not saying you should find a definition that fits every religion.
    Another guy worth reading is Wittgenstein, especially his philosophical investigations. Religion for him would be a language game, a series of different activities that have a 'family resemblance' to each other, but that have no core 'essence' that can be captured by a single definition. Eco makes good use of the phrase in this little article on 'ur fascism':

    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

    This is much more intelligible than the Quine article. Though, I want to quote something from Quine, which is worth mentioning. Keep in mind as you read this that Quine is acknowledged to be one of the most brilliant logicians, ever:

    "
    As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits."


    Edit: now that is biting the bullet!

    ArtonamlneveseJLee
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 648
    Saw this quote and thought of the discussion regarding if Buddhism is a religion or not.

    "Find the cause of suffering and remove it. Then you can attain peace. Is that religion? No. It's reality."
    — Lama Chime Rinpoche

    GrammarsaladmlneveseLadyRhian
  • voidofopinionvoidofopinion Member Posts: 1,242
    edited December 2018
    I've been watching Kim's Convenience on Netflix and it reminds me of the one thing I miss about organized religion.

    The community.




    I knew a hundred good-hearted people who acted just like these folks.

    :)

  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,911
    Faith

    It’s not rational by the bible’s definition. The point is to choose to believe even though you don’t know by your own senses.

    This seems to frustrate both believers and non-believers. It requires a certain level of cognitive dissonance, ignorance, or self-knowledge followed by acceptance to have faith in the divine.

    Critics of religion often point out that faith isn’t rational. The ignorant believer will nevertheless insist that it is. Many believers already know that it’s irrational, so the argument means nothing to either.

    In effect, the non-believer’s strongest argument (irrationality) falls on deaf ears for many believers.

    Yet the believer’s strongest argument is not faith or rationality (though many often try to resolve their own cognitive dissonance by making supposedly rational excuses for their faith).

    Instead, the strongest argument of a believer is a sense of purpose derived from that faith. That purpose is found in either a strong commitment to their moral code or a sense of greater meaning beyond oneself.

    This sense of purpose, for “good” or “bad,” is the lifeblood of the believer. It is what drives them beyond the rational into the realm of faith.

    This sense of purpose is the purpose of faith.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,911
    edited December 2018
    This has been on my mind a lot lately as I’ve question my own faith. I wanted to talk about it for the believers and non-believers.

    For the believers: stop trying to prove that your religion is rational! It’s not and can’t be, otherwise it’s not your religion. Instead, actually talk about why you believe: your honor code, your community, or your commitment to a higher purpose. Don’t fight fire with fire, use water.

    For the non-believers: if you’re truly interested in promoting rationality, and eliminating the fanaticism that comes from evil and hypocritical religious practices, there must be something to replace the purpose of faith. They don’t believe because it makes sense to their senses; they believe because it rings in their soul.

    Balrog99Grond0ThacoBellmlnevese
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    @mashedtaters Love your comments, but I disagree on one point. Faith. I agree that it's not rational, but it shouldn't require cognitive dissonance or imposed ignorance. There is a big difference in believing something that might be true, and something that clearly isn't. Depending on your faith, nothing in it should contradict the world you live in. If a creator being, or beings, created the world, then that world should reflect them. Faith can and should be tempered by critical thinking.

    mashedtatersGrond0
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,718
    The troubling thing about faith is that, most often than not, it can and will de-evolve into blind faith. This is an acute problem not only seen in religions. But in a wide variety of other topics as well. Personally, I find it especially exhausting listening to almost fantatical soccer fans... *sigh*

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,911
    I think it definitely requires either ignorance, cognitive dissonance, or self knowledge and acceptance.

    It’s not like it’s an insult. We all have ignorance and cognitive dissonance to quite a major extent.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @mashedtaters Love your comments, but I disagree on one point. Faith. I agree that it's not rational, but it shouldn't require cognitive dissonance or imposed ignorance. There is a big difference in believing something that might be true, and something that clearly isn't. Depending on your faith, nothing in it should contradict the world you live in. If a creator being, or beings, created the world, then that world should reflect them. Faith can and should be tempered by critical thinking.

    How do you know it's even possible that a creator being created world?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    I don't "Know". That's why its called "Faith".

    mashedtatersBalrog99
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,911
    edited December 2018

    The troubling thing about faith is that, most often than not, it can and will de-evolve into blind faith. This is an acute problem not only seen in religions. But in a wide variety of other topics as well. Personally, I find it especially exhausting listening to almost fantatical soccer fans... *sigh*

    in my opinion, the media blows up every act of horror by an evil person who is also a member of a religion. Then they say this person had “blind faith” (which is really just a way of saying religious and stupid) when the person was just actually evil.

    Though some religions are statistically more prone to violence than others, more often “blind faith” is just an excuse that is made for evil people. People who are evil like to use their faith to justify their evil actions, and people who don’t like that religion, or religion in general, tend to blame the faith instead of holding the individual accountable. In the end, it’s a way of stripping individuals of accountability for their own actions.

    It’s also a way to scare people away from religion. It’s not like faith makes you evil (though ideology can give you incorrect principles). You choose to be evil. Then you grasp for whatever excuses you can as justification for breaking your conscience. In the case of “religious” evil people, the term blind faith is popular.

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 1,911

    ThacoBell said:

    @mashedtaters Love your comments, but I disagree on one point. Faith. I agree that it's not rational, but it shouldn't require cognitive dissonance or imposed ignorance. There is a big difference in believing something that might be true, and something that clearly isn't. Depending on your faith, nothing in it should contradict the world you live in. If a creator being, or beings, created the world, then that world should reflect them. Faith can and should be tempered by critical thinking.

    How do you know it's even possible that a creator being created world?
    How do you know it’s not possible?

    ThacoBell
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,718
    Faith is no priviledge of religion though. People can have faith in literally anything out there: from loved ones, to sports, to horoscopes, to UFO's, to superstitions, to even Bigfoot. Religion is just one of the more prominent causes of the blind faith dilemma. Even if it's within the same religion, as The Troubles in North Ireland plainy showed.

    As for the whole evil person/good person philosophy... I regard such alignments as nothing more than man-made thought constructs. People do not choose to be either good or evil per say. Humans follow their impulses, instincts, feelings, reasoning, or whatever. None of them is any more "evil" than the others, really. And none truly do exclude each other out either.

    ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    Kinda. No one really chooses to do evil for evil's sake, rather they act in ways that are either impulsive or selfish. People can and do choose to good for good's sake though. Sometimes even begrudingly.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    ThacoBell said:

    @mashedtaters Love your comments, but I disagree on one point. Faith. I agree that it's not rational, but it shouldn't require cognitive dissonance or imposed ignorance. There is a big difference in believing something that might be true, and something that clearly isn't. Depending on your faith, nothing in it should contradict the world you live in. If a creator being, or beings, created the world, then that world should reflect them. Faith can and should be tempered by critical thinking.

    How do you know it's even possible that a creator being created world?
    How do you know it’s not possible?
    I didn't say it's not possible. He said "There is a big difference in believing something that might be true" which is saying it's possible. I wonder how one might know this.

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,718
    ThacoBell said:

    Kinda. No one really chooses to do evil for evil's sake, rather they act in ways that are either impulsive or selfish. People can and do choose to good for good's sake though. Sometimes even begrudingly.

    That definition however will become highly subjective, as there is no univeral understanding of "good" amongst humans. Something which may be personally good for you or your family may very well be the doom of others. And vice versa. Thus the saying "You can't please everyone."

    Then there is the concept of "the greater good". Which, if you ask me, is really just another term for pragmatism.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,586
    @Kamigoroshi I think my point still applies. No one says to themselves, "Dang it, guess I should do the evil thing here." Regardless of what evil means to them. But people do often say, "Well, its the right thing, I should probably do it." Again, regardless of what they personally view as "good" the thought still applies to them.

    @FinneousPJ Well, how might one know that something isn't possible without direct evidence otherwise? THe question works both ways, and without an objective way to "know" either way, there really isn't an objective answer.

  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012

    ThacoBell said:

    @mashedtaters Love your comments, but I disagree on one point. Faith. I agree that it's not rational, but it shouldn't require cognitive dissonance or imposed ignorance. There is a big difference in believing something that might be true, and something that clearly isn't. Depending on your faith, nothing in it should contradict the world you live in. If a creator being, or beings, created the world, then that world should reflect them. Faith can and should be tempered by critical thinking.

    How do you know it's even possible that a creator being created world?
    How do you know it’s not possible?
    I tried to construct an argument that suggests some impossible causal loop that's entailed by assuming some other-worldy creator. Let me quote myself:
    It would shame if that thread died out, so let me rejuvenate it a little bit. ;)
    When it comes to discussing God - and as a God I mean being (possibly a person) that created Universe and (arguably) is omnipotent or so powerful that they're practically omnipotent - I'm less bothered with lack of evidence than with shifting meanings of words, that inevitably go with the question.
    For example in this clip Stephen Colbert asks "why there is something, rather nothing?". Seems like fair, genuine question to ask, no?
    There are certain pressupositions that come with this question. Presuppositions are necessary statements, that make given statement sensible. In example, when we say (to take example from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) "king's son is bald", then we presuppose that there is a king and he has a son. Without that presupposition our statement lack any sense.
    So, let's return to Colbert's question. When we ask "why", we mean "what is the cause", right? That's how I understand this question. So we could paraphrase it "what is the cause, that there is something, rather than nothing?". Other important thing about that question is that "something" surely means *everything* in that context. Colbert doesn't ask trivial question about *some* things, but refers to general existance of things - because he says "something rather than nothing". So "something" could easily be replaced by "anything". The question we finally receive is "what is the cause that there is anything?".
    I think that paraphrase makes clearer what presupposition that question entails: that it is sensible to assume causes outside of "anything". But, is it? I don't see any good meaning of "anything" except for "entirety of causes and effects" or similar - I mean, "anything" (or world, or cosmos, etc.) should mean anything, not just unspecified class of things. Asking Colbert's question entails accepting that everything isn't everything, in a sense. Any cause of "anything" should exist within "anything", otherwise "anything" doesn't mean anything, but merely anything minus the cause of anything.
    The same can be said about question of who created the world. If there is something outside the world, then what was created isn't the world, but merely (let's say) the Creation. The world would actually be Creation + Creator, and we still wouldn't need any explanation of the cause of the world.

    I put in spoiler to not bore people who saw it.

    And let me add some other reflections: we can easily imagine a set X that consists of two elements: A, that is subset of all of things, and B, some other priviliged being, who has special relation with A - that is, it's creator of B. We can even propose that B has power to destroy and create A as he pleases. Regardless, the very fact that A and B are parts of the same set makes them subjected to the same rules. Therefore while B is in some way priviliged, in relation to the rules of X it's the same is A - the same way mountain is bigger than hill, but it is not granted any special position within physical world and it's rules.
    Of course, we could assume that there is some other creator B', who has the same relation with X as B has with A - but then it would lead to identical framework, where some X' is set of B' and X.
    It all seems to lead to conclusion that if there is a god, then it is subjected to some rules of the world. So he is some Gardener of Cosmos, not eternal source of life, sense, or anything. There is nothing transcendent about creator, and I am willing to say that this is intelectuall necessity. Even if it turns out that our knowledge of rules ruling our world is completely false, then it simply means that creator behaves under rules that are currently unknown to humanity.
    And if we assume that there are no general rules, then there is no way for creator to impose his rules.

    I might be completely wrong about that, though. My failure, however, would only mean that there is possible for creator to be.

    Grammarsalad
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @Kamigoroshi I think my point still applies. No one says to themselves, "Dang it, guess I should do the evil thing here." Regardless of what evil means to them. But people do often say, "Well, its the right thing, I should probably do it." Again, regardless of what they personally view as "good" the thought still applies to them.

    @FinneousPJ Well, how might one know that something isn't possible without direct evidence otherwise? THe question works both ways, and without an objective way to "know" either way, there really isn't an objective answer.

    Right, so what made you conclude it IS possible?

  • Grond0Grond0 Member, Moderator Posts: 4,884
    edited December 2018

    ThacoBell said:

    @Kamigoroshi I think my point still applies. No one says to themselves, "Dang it, guess I should do the evil thing here." Regardless of what evil means to them. But people do often say, "Well, its the right thing, I should probably do it." Again, regardless of what they personally view as "good" the thought still applies to them.

    @FinneousPJ Well, how might one know that something isn't possible without direct evidence otherwise? THe question works both ways, and without an objective way to "know" either way, there really isn't an objective answer.

    Right, so what made you conclude it IS possible?
    The use of logic presumably - if something can't be disproven it's possible.

    Artona said:

    And let me add some other reflections: we can easily imagine a set X that consists of two elements: A, that is subset of all of things, and B, some other priviliged being, who has special relation with A - that is, it's creator of B. We can even propose that B has power to destroy and create A as he pleases. Regardless, the very fact that A and B are parts of the same set makes them subjected to the same rules. Therefore while B is in some way priviliged, in relation to the rules of X it's the same is A - the same way mountain is bigger than hill, but it is not granted any special position within physical world and it's rules.

    Of course, we could assume that there is some other creator B', who has the same relation with X as B has with A - but then it would lead to identical framework, where some X' is set of B' and X.
    It all seems to lead to conclusion that if there is a god, then it is subjected to some rules of the world. So he is some Gardener of Cosmos, not eternal source of life, sense, or anything. There is nothing transcendent about creator, and I am willing to say that this is intelectuall necessity. Even if it turns out that our knowledge of rules ruling our world is completely false, then it simply means that creator behaves under rules that are currently unknown to humanity.

    And if we assume that there are no general rules, then there is no way for creator to impose his rules.

    I might be completely wrong about that, though. My failure, however, would only mean that there is possible for creator to be.

    I think very few people describing themselves as religious would agree with this. You're starting from the assumption that a creator is not transcendent and is bound by the same general rules as their creation. However, almost any definition of a religion incorporates a supernatural aspect to god, so that they are transcendent and are not bound by the rules of their creation. It's the inability to prove or disprove something that lies outside the rules governing the universe as we understand them that means the existence of god can't be subject to intellectual proofs.

    ThacoBellmlnevesemashedtaters
Sign In or Register to comment.