First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Nature of Existence
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

nashx02 wrote:

Yes question! what was your point?



He's made more of a point than you, he's contributing his ideas/opinions and possibly encouraging others to use their brains and THINK about things.

Obviously hasn't encouraged you at all. If this doesn't interest you then stop reading and saying stupid shit like that.

Oh and Eros I kinda get what you're saying.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

It seems to me that ideas have far more power than perhaps some people here have credited. If someone thinks that something is real to them it can be so. Anything that we perceive with our brain is what is real to us. So if you are able to convince yourself enough it is theoretically possible to alter your own reality. Since your own personal reality is all that exists for you then it can be argued than things that exist in the mind, posses as much power over an individual. What I mean is that a hypothetical unicorn may start off in a story in my head but when I think it is real with no doubt then for me it posses power. As much as one that was real. Reality and the existence of anything even what we directly perceive is proven 100% since we are slaves to our senses. This same arguement applies to god. I truly think faith healing can be real as it is similar to the placebo effect. I have personally seen people who had terrible diseases forgo modern medicine for such healing-and it be effective. Does that mean god is a being that exists in reality? Of course not. This is an example of an idea that exists only in the mind exerting power in the reality of each of the people so healed. I think that thinks that exist in actual reality matter far more of course but it is not so simple as you make it seem. The answer as to which is more real is complex as both forms of existence effect reality as we can perceive it. Does the unicorn story have to power that a real unicorn would? No but do not assume that ideas do not exert a powerful influence on human events. So the idea of a god possess power that is as great as a real god for some people.


Agreed. We can only perceive our own reality, so it's kinda cool that just our ideas can affect us just as physical objects may.
There was an experiment done by the Nazis (I think) on the human mind. Two people were used as guinea pigs. One person was tied up, blindfolded, and his/her wrists were cut with a knife, and the person bled to death. The other person was forced to watch.
Then they told the other person that they were gonna do the same to him. They tied him up, blindfolded him, and then ran ice along his wrists. Not sure about the pain (maybe they numbed the other guy or something), but the second guy died shortly afterwards. It was believed that the water dropping from the ice made the guy think he was bleeding, and he had no way of knowing, so his mind was definitely over matter I guess.
Another example would be the old Aborigines in Australia. Very briefly, the magic man points "the bone" at you, and you believe that you're gonna die so much that you die.
With that in mind, it's interesting that ideas can also be used to BENEFIT us, like that "The Secret" thingy that was all the craze about last year? Something on that about some woman who cured herself from cancer just by believing that she was cured. Don't know what to believe with that.

Which comes to another point. If this is true, then what would be the limit of this "mind power"? If we assume that the woman DID in fact cure her cancer, essentially getting rid of cells in her body or altering her body with her mind, then will we be able to, for example, grow another finger or something. Could we use our minds to change our bodies?
If that is possible, then would it be possible for people to do shit with their minds? For example, a tree exists in both mine, and your reality. But then again, so is my body (if you see me). If I can change my body in front of you, then I should be able to change that tree. Get it?

Sounds quite wtf but hell that would be awesome. Also would explain where psychic stuff came about.

Oh btw, /b/rother?
21991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

nashx02 wrote:

Now whats the point of this topic? are you guyz trying to get everyone not to believe or believe in GOD?

Well guyz we should really stop debating about God,if he really exist or not.
My own opinion is, its better to believe than regret it in the end. what is there to lose anyway.


no I think they're debating more over whether something that is intangible and may only be an idea exists. They're using God as an example and are not trying to convert you
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

Eros wrote:

I'm only going to respond to your opening post in order to explain what you are doing. I don't really wish to get dragged into the issues one could say. You seem to have put some time into your post, so I'll put some length into my response, though that won't gain me readership.

"For centuries the human race has been asking the wrong question,'is there a God?' or 'does God exist?'; the answer to those questions are simple and can be summed up into one word, Yes."
Meh, quite the overstatement, as well as an oversimplification, and in the same sentence too, quite impressive!

Look, God does not exist, but the idea of God does.
But you are attempting to argue: oh no, god exists, but in the mind. As if this were something revolutionary. Hardly.

Well, let me tell you something. Both ways of looking at the issue hold the same exact position in fact. When it comes down to it you agree that God does not exist out there in the world, and the other side would say that God exists in some sense in realm of ideas.

The interesting thing in this thread is how does one hold the same exact conclusion in fact while upholding a seemingly opposite conclusion? By twisting meaning - having a different meaning in mind. By taking advantage of vagueness. You went to some length to create an alternative conceptual structure in order to support a seemingly contradictory position.

We can see an instance of how you inverted meaning concretely though your statement "ethereal existence is a higher form than physical existence". Come now, what kind of unicorn is more real, or better, or a higher form of existence -- one that is out there in the world and can poke people with its horn, or one that only exists to poke people insofar as real people make up stories about it poking people with its horn. The answer is obvious, but you are free to spend all day giving a convoluted answer for why you disagree.

The standard way to state the facts of the matter is that God does not exist, but the idea of God does. Since God does not exist, God only has power insofar as the idea of God has power. This is an accurate description of the facts. Your alternative description of God existing ( but only in the mind) may be considered to be an accurate description of the facts as well. However, this way of stating things requires an unusual qualification to the notion of existence. Many people really believe that God exists out there in the world and many of these people certainly believe strongly in this conviction. Throughout history it has been predominantly this notion of God as out there in the world that atheists have argued against. Because this is the case, it is natural to say that this notion of god does not exist. It should be clear by now why your description is the alternative.

Any questions?


I'm just popping in before I go out to dinner to say a few things.

You claim I was making an overstatement and an oversimplification, while I understand where you are coming from, I deny its validity. To me, the ideas are just that simple. Can you deny that God exists in the mind?

Of course I will admit I was a bit misleading in my OP when I stated that 'God exists' but the point of my OP was to distinguish between a real existence and a surreal existence (in the mind only).

Of course, this is hardly revolutionary, but how many of the topics on this forum are revolutionary? Like one of the previous posts stated, what is in your mind may hold just as much, if not more power on you than something in the percieved reality. For all reality, before we can understand what it is, becomes a reality in our mind first.

I am only trying to advocate the idea that God's existence is in the mind, and only in the mind. And in the nature of that form of existence, his power is not diminished but rather increased. Up to this date I have not seen such a description of God, I do not claim to be nearly well read so I ask this of you.

If you are able to find an article/book on this subject, please kindly direct me in that direction as I wish to learn what others of similar thoughts have stated about this issue.

--------------

Also a similar critique of Anselm's Ontological approach to proving the existence of this 'God' is this

'what qualities define "greatness"?'

Is it physical size? or mental prowess?

Is it being just or unjust?

...and the list goes on and on.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08
I suppose it bears explaining in detail why it is not quite that simple.
Despite all that I have typed you ask, "Can you deny that God exists in the mind?"
Let me rephrase your question.
Does the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe exist in minds -- my mind, your mind?
Funny right?
That is the standard conception of the word "god".
A more accurate description of the facts would be to state that an idea of God exists in minds.
It seems to me this is the key point you got caught up on.

Secondly, well, there is a good reason you have not seen your position that a god who's existence is only in the mind is greater than a god who's existence is tangible.

It is important now to take the above point into consideration. You should now realize that it is a bit strange to talk of god as existing in the mind using the standard notion of god. Rather, we should talk about the idea of god existing in the mind.

Note that this is exactly what Anselm did (he had his concepts straight). He noted god as in reality and god as in imagination. It may be important for you to realize that this does not mean there are two potential kinds of gods, one in reality, and one in the mind. There is the idea of god in the mind, and then there is god in reality. A god in reality is certainly greater than god as in imagination, as god in imagination is not really there at all as the standard conception of god (which I showed above), but simply as an idea. A god-like being in the world would have god-like powers. The idea of a god-like being in the mind has no such powers.

Nonetheless, the idea of god has been very powerful...we just are not going to see this idea of god performing any miracles anytime soon.

We agree on the facts of the matter, you just have your concepts a bit out of wack it seems.
5211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / You'll never guess!
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08
I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. Existance is just that: there. With no meaning or purpose, it allows us to fill our lives with whatever we want. The meaning of life is to live, and the meaning of existance is to be. I quite enjoy it, and pleanty of other people would agree, I think.
1185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08
If ethereal existence is placed above physical that would put god in his place above man.
Personally i don't believe in existence without an observer. (pretty much the tree falling in the forrest statement applied to this situation) So that is to say if you happen to be the last intelligent sentient being in the universe (impossible i know ) and there is nobody there to confirm your existence, then you might as well not exist. This is where the concept of god could come in to contradict such a statement. One could consider god to be a supreme observer that is concious of every living being so he would be confirming one's existence. I'm don't belive in god myself which is how i allow myself to this way of thinking but even if god is not "real" himself. His premise and concept certainly are.

Edit: I wasn't trying to make one particular point here, this is all general.
3336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

excalion wrote:

To which I have to counter this, with the same example. The image that existed in the painter's head prior to execution is an infinitely more perfect existence, due to the fact no painter or artist can convey perfectly the thoughts in their head. After the execution, both images, physical and mental, become tainted due to imperfections in expression.

Therefor I believe that the idea as it exists in the mind is more pristine and powerful than the realization of that idea in physical terms.

You actually said this same thing in your own post. =)


I just have a few things to say about that painter example you mentioned.

First of all, I love to draw and paint. However, when I paint a picture, I don't have the final picture in mind.
Yes I DO know what I am going to paint, but I do not have the completed picture "perfectly" in mind. When I paint, each brush stroke changes my view of the final product.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the images, both physical and mental, become tainted (I would use the word "Changed" instead) due to imperfections in expression. Yes. Right. HOWEVER, these "imperfections" or mistakes can bring out something that you could not have imagined in your "perfect" mental image.

So I believe that there is not enough information to validate that ethereal existence is greater than physical existence. As a matter of fact, I actually believe that physical existence is greater than ethereal existence.

My reasoning?

Well, without a physical brain you cannot even consider ethereal existence. Right?

However I am not saying that you are wrong or anything, I am just stating my views on this subject. Please tell me your views so that I may broaden my horizons.


Thanks
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Hotlanta
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08
So when all humans die, God ceases to exist?

Does the last person on earth exist? There's no one else there to acknowledge his or her existence.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 4/18/08

Eros wrote:

I suppose it bears explaining in detail why it is not quite that simple.
Despite all that I have typed you ask, "Can you deny that God exists in the mind?"
Let me rephrase your question.
Does the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe exist in minds -- my mind, your mind?
Funny right?
That is the standard conception of the word "god".
A more accurate description of the facts would be to state that an idea of God exists in minds.
It seems to me this is the key point you got caught up on.


Yes, that is exactly what I meant. My point however is the existence of the idea of God in the imagination IS the existence of God in the imagination, and in the reality of our existence as perceived by our imagination.

Maybe this will help:

"God exists as an idea."

So, to answer your question. Yes, as much as this computer before me exists.


Eros wrote:

Secondly, well, there is a good reason you have not seen your position that a god who's existence is only in the mind is greater than a god who's existence is tangible.



Care to clarify exactly what you mean here?


Eros wrote:

It is important now to take the above point into consideration. You should now realize that it is a bit strange to talk of god as existing in the mind using the standard notion of god. Rather, we should talk about the idea of god existing in the mind.



I do not find that strange at all since I believe the standard notion of God is wrong. I do believe God exists, he exists though, only in the mind as an idea. Through that idea, people have conceptualized it into our reality, as extentions of our imagination.


Eros wrote:

Note that this is exactly what Anselm did (he had his concepts straight). He noted god as in reality and god as in imagination. It may be important for you to realize that this does not mean there are two potential kinds of gods, one in reality, and one in the mind. There is the idea of god in the mind, and then there is god in reality. A god in reality is certainly greater than god as in imagination, as god in imagination is not really there at all as the standard conception of god (which I showed above), but simply as an idea. A god-like being in the world would have god-like powers. The idea of a god-like being in the mind has no such powers.



To be honest I only used Anselm as a reference various times to argue my own point. The proof that Anselm provided had very many fundamental flaws in itself. True, his logic is impeccable, but his premises are extremely flawed when subjected to close examination. Under false premises, it is possible to logically conclude ANY kind of conclusion. I wont go into details (because proving this step by step will take three pages) but allowing God's existence as a possibility already severely violates the logical process in his proof.

PS: This topic is not a discussion focused on Anselm's proof, but since you brought it into the argument, I thought I'd just state that it is broken.


Eros wrote:

Nonetheless, the idea of god has been very powerful...we just are not going to see this idea of god performing any miracles anytime soon.

We agree on the facts of the matter, you just have your concepts a bit out of wack it seems.


I'm sure you are already aware that there is a difference between empirical reality and human's perception of reality.

My claim is simply this:

1. Humans does not/can not know empirical reality.
2. Human's perception of reality is just another part of their own imagination.
3. To humans, there are two realms of any significance, their 'imagination' and an 'imagination that everyone thinks is reality'.
4. God exists in the two realms of any importance to humans as an imaginary being.
5. It is pointless to debate the existence of God in empirical reality because that is similar to a world of blind men debating the existence of the color 'red'.

6. So back to my original point:
--God (rather the idea of God) exists in our imagination, and that form of existence is just as 'real' as any other thing we can call 'real'.
--Unicorns (rather the idea of unicorns) also exist in our imagination, and that form of existence is just as 'real' as any other thing we can call 'real'.

Why? You used the example that an imaginary unicorn cannot pierce a man's heart with its imaginary horn.
There is one reason for that, because the average man does not seriously believe in unicorns.
Per the example that Gabcom provided, if a person is absolutely convinced that a certain 'imaginary' happening is 'real', it could lead to quite 'real' outcomes and circumstances.
"Provided of course that these are all within the realm of possible outcomes." you might argue, but what is possible and impossible is just two categories that we organize things that have happened and havn't happened in the past, is it not?

---------------------------

Also, like someone else said already, this topic is not really a discussion about God.

Look carefully and you will see God is merely an example used in the discussion, and the discussion is in fact on the topic of various forms of 'existence'.

PSS: Your posts make a lot of sense Eros, I do believe I agree with you on the subject of God except in the conflict of several minute details.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

qweruiop wrote:


excalion wrote:

To which I have to counter this, with the same example. The image that existed in the painter's head prior to execution is an infinitely more perfect existence, due to the fact no painter or artist can convey perfectly the thoughts in their head. After the execution, both images, physical and mental, become tainted due to imperfections in expression.

Therefor I believe that the idea as it exists in the mind is more pristine and powerful than the realization of that idea in physical terms.

You actually said this same thing in your own post. =)


I just have a few things to say about that painter example you mentioned.

First of all, I love to draw and paint. However, when I paint a picture, I don't have the final picture in mind.
Yes I DO know what I am going to paint, but I do not have the completed picture "perfectly" in mind. When I paint, each brush stroke changes my view of the final product.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the images, both physical and mental, become tainted (I would use the word "Changed" instead) due to imperfections in expression. Yes. Right. HOWEVER, these "imperfections" or mistakes can bring out something that you could not have imagined in your "perfect" mental image.

So I believe that there is not enough information to validate that ethereal existence is greater than physical existence. As a matter of fact, I actually believe that physical existence is greater than ethereal existence.

My reasoning?

Well, without a physical brain you cannot even consider ethereal existence. Right?

However I am not saying that you are wrong or anything, I am just stating my views on this subject. Please tell me your views so that I may broaden my horizons.


Thanks


Without plastic, you cannot have a computer/internet/forums with awesome posts. =)

However I see where you are coming from. Random happenings may sometimes form more...appreciable end products than planned construction. However that was just an example and like all examples, can be refuted with more examples.

The...initial example of me stating that ethereal existence is greater than physical is just me taking Anselm's bait on his conceptualization of God. (God is a being which no greater being can be thought.)

But rather than thinking about that, consider this.

The image that pops into your head when you first decide to paint, would you consider that image as an existence? Along with the feelings that come with it. (majestic, elegant etc.)

If you do, how does that existence compare with the existence of your finished painting?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

cleaverboy wrote:

If ethereal existence is placed above physical that would put god in his place above man.
Personally i don't believe in existence without an observer. (pretty much the tree falling in the forrest statement applied to this situation) So that is to say if you happen to be the last intelligent sentient being in the universe (impossible i know ) and there is nobody there to confirm your existence, then you might as well not exist. This is where the concept of god could come in to contradict such a statement. One could consider god to be a supreme observer that is concious of every living being so he would be confirming one's existence. I'm don't belive in god myself which is how i allow myself to this way of thinking but even if god is not "real" himself. His premise and concept certainly are.

Edit: I wasn't trying to make one particular point here, this is all general.


Yes but does God need us to confirm HIS existence?

If he does, would the idea of him existing in our imagination be such a confirmation?

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

lordlag wrote:

how can you say that your definition of something that exists is something that's "there" and then later on add that "it's an existence of a higher form than physical existence"...?


i can't believe i read all that


I'm not sure what exactly you're asking here but if this helps any:

its 'there' in your imagination
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08

Nucular wrote:

So when all humans die, God ceases to exist?

Does the last person on earth exist? There's no one else there to acknowledge his or her existence.


Correction:

When all religionXbelievers die, the religionXGod ceases to exist.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08
Eros responded well in regards to the actual content of your post. Linguistic philosophy would, I'm afraid, tear it to shreds.

I ask myself two questions before I get into these mental gymnastics:
1.) Can this really lead to a conclusion of which I can be certain, or reasonably so?
2.) Can this change my life in some way?

Far more often than not, "no" is the answer to each question, particularly the first.

My own opinion on the nature of existence? It is, as far as I'm concerned, unknowable. Our systems of reason and language that we use to organize and communicate reality are still just systems, imposing themselves upon reality rather than reflecting it. We are bound and therefore limited to them, so our hopes of understanding the true nature of reality (if such a thing can be said to exist) are foolish.

With this outlook, I find more and more that human communication is little more than mental masturbation. But I'm straying.

Beyond my own opinion, I would like to point out that you are 1.) assuming your premises are true (as you mention), 2.) assuming your premises are meaningful, 3.) concluding something from your premises that does not necessarily follow from them as they are stated, and 4.) not arriving at a significant conclusion.

I think we humans assume too much in general about our capabilities. To think we can reason effectively in the face of language itself, to even think that reason is the proper way of concluding things... aren't we arrogant?

1717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Philippines, Cabu...
Offline
Posted 1/18/08 , edited 4/18/08
Hey no hey now this is an interesting threads(for me though) i only tot that people in here are bunch of otakus hehe~~

Well well well to answer all your questions out there you might want to know that there is a verse like this:
(Consider me as a God believer, my basis is from the bible.)

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, AND "ASK" FOR THE "OLD PATHS", where is the GOOD WAY, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.

Jeremiah 6:16
King James Version


And in comparison to this verse, in the New Testament John also state this verse:


Beloved, believe not EVERY SPIRIT, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I John 4:1
King James Version



So this two verse only proves that, there was so many existing false religion(ways), but those verse also said that there IS A GOOD WAY(singular). all you need to do is satnd in the WAYS and ask for the OLD PATHS where is the GOOD WAY.

Then the next question is: Who will you ask?
In Haggai 2:11 states:


Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law,

Haggai 2:11
King James Version



The verse said "Ask the Priest"(Saserdote) and it is considered to be a RELIGIOUS LEADER in our time. and to support this statement, apostle peter state a verse like this:


But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I Peter 3:15
King James Version


And to porve that, LORD Jesuschrist state this verse to his aposlte while he was preaching.


And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Luke 21:13-15
King James Version


So all you need to ASK is the leaders of any religious organization, and TEST THEIR SPIRIT if they were from GOD.

How would you know if its really from GOD or not?
The answer is simple, the COMMANDMENT


If any man think himself to be a PROPHET, or SPIRITUAL, let him acknowledge that the things that I WRITE unto you are the COMMANDMENTS of the Lord.

I Corinthians 14:37
King James Version



So over all the preacher who answer according to the scriptures(w/c is the commandment) is the right one to ask.


Now I know one man who is willing to be asked by someone or anyone who is thirst and searching for the truth.


I invite you if you are interested why not try visiting this links below, it wouldn't hurt if you only just try. All you have to do is ASK, LISTEN, and WATCH.

To know more about this, try visiting this links below :

www.esoriano.wordpress.com
www.angdatingdaan.org
www.theoldpath.tv


Thank you for reading
GOD Bless

jms_addz™
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.