Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ BR IX

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm far from an expert on Hinduism.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Metalking
      Your link isn't working....Me talking.
      It just worked for me and it worked for me where Koban quoted it.
      Maybe you haven't spilled as much beer on your keyboard as I have.
      Try clicking real hard.
      Everyman is a voice in the dark.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fool
        I believe the Hindu option includes it always being there and recreating itself on some sort of schedule.
        Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.
        As long as there is breath there is Hope...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by truthteller86
          Even if that's the case, that would still be option (1) It has always been here. I see you are resolved not to answer and that's okay. Hey, when you decide to clear out some of your unneeded PM mail, let me know. Jeez.
          OK.
          I just went in there and broomed out about a third of it, so fire away.
          Everyman is a voice in the dark.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by truthteller86
            Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...

            There's an obvious third option.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by koban
              There's an obvious third option.
              I kinda like "I don't know"
              Everyman is a voice in the dark.

              Comment


              • Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

                As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

                SS

                Comment


                • Originally posted by truthteller86
                  fool, would you agree there are only two broad possibilities as to the origin of the universe:

                  1) Either it has always been here

                  2) Or it was created at some point

                  I do not want to start a new thread on the 1st two laws of thermodynamics, but I was just curious if you at least agreed with these two fundamental assumptions re: the universe.
                  Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

                  To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

                  If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.
                  "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                  "The best things in life aren't things"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mighty_duck
                    Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

                    To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

                    If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.
                    That seems to sum it up.
                    Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mighty_duck
                      Science is still investigating, so it is premature to give an answer here. Most scientists agree that it is pointless to talk of events "before" the big bang, since time itself is meaningless as we near the singularity. Our knowledge is very sketchy here, and progress is somewhat slow due to the difficulty in experimentation, and the limited practical use it can bring.

                      To say science has concluded that one or the other is impossible, is just plain wrong.

                      If this "I don't know" makes you uncomfortable, then just posit a Deist god to get things going. How that helps you get to a personal god, let alone the Christian God of your favorite denomination, is beyond me.
                      Since this is supposed to be a critique thread for the BR_IX posts, I relocate my exchange with you and fool here. I know I brought it up.
                      As long as there is breath there is Hope...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by sentientsynth
                        Answering the question of "where God came from" is like attempting to draw a five sided triangle. The very concept of God must include eternality, among other attributes, in order to be logically consistent. If God had ever been created, if there had been any moment in which He didn't exist, then He wouldn't be God.

                        As Hilston is demonstrating, any attempt to deny God's existence through logic is self-refuting. If God didn't exist, there would be no security that logic reflected reality (induction would have to rely upon statistics solely.)

                        SS
                        Good assesment SS. "where did god come from" is a wrong question, since He is defined as eternal. The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".

                        The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws.
                        All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.
                        "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                        "The best things in life aren't things"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by truthteller86
                          Fair enough, however, you can think from now until the day you die and you will never come up with a third option. I'll not ask you to publicly choose sides, but would you at least acknowledge those are the only two possibilities. I'm also not inferring the mechanism for option (2), just that it had a starting point...
                          The third option is solipsism, the idea that your mind creates the universe, that all perceptions are really perceptions of the Self, and that, in the final analysis, it is all an illusion.

                          The problem with this is that it is inherently contradictory.

                          1. The Self exists.
                          2. Nothing exists.

                          This is a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Eastern mystics try to skirt around this problem by claiming that there are two forms of logic: 1.either/or 2. both/and.

                          An example of each:

                          1. The universe either does exist or does not exist.
                          2. The universe both does exist and does not exist.

                          Hindu philosophers choose the both/and system of logic exclusively not realizing that by doing so they violate the very both/and system the operate under. For to be truly both/and, one must admit that both the either/or and the both/and systems of logic were true. But even if they won't admit this, they give themselves away when they cross the street. You see, they look both ways before crossing because ultimately they know that it's either the bus or them, not both!! (I have this on good authority from an Indian man.)


                          A weaker definition of solipsism may be "the self is all that you know to exist." This is akin to a strong form of agnosticism. It attempts to define the borders for the possibility of knowledge. But to make the claim "I can have no knowledge beyond the self" is to profess to know where "the self" ends and "beyond the self" begins. But to be able to know where "beyond the self" begins is to claim to know that "beyond the self" actually exists!

                          So while solipsism is the third option for the origins of the universe, no one takes it seriously. That's probably why you didn't include it in your list. But, for the sake of completeness, we should include solipsism as one possibility of the origin of the universe.

                          SS

                          Comment


                          • Sentientsynth,

                            Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?

                            There may have been some Hindu philosophers who stuck exclusively to the "logic" of both/and thinking, and thus became embroiled in self-contradiction, but this is not true of all of them. Besides strict monists, Indian spiritual/philosophical culture has also produced dualists and qualified non-dualists, the latter of which is quite aware of the subtleties you are describing.

                            Also, technically, I do not agree that the Hindu theory of the identity of atman and Brahman is solipsistic, at least when it is properly understood. I would agree, however, that it is vulnerable to solipsistic interpretation ... and unhealthy world-denial.

                            Peace,
                            Balder
                            "Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mighty_duck
                              The only time it should ever come up is if a theist asserts "everything has a cause!". It then becomes a valid question to ask "what caused god?".
                              This is true. However, it is wrong for a theist to assert "everything has a cause." Correct is "for every effect there is a cause." And to claim that God is an effect would be a violation of God's necessary attributes, as we concluded earlier.

                              The more I think about it, Hilston actually has a point that using strict logic it is nearly impossible to refute God. Unfortunatly, the same can be said about Allah, Shiva, Zeus, The jolly green giant, Leprecauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws.
                              Shiva, Zeus, the Jolly Green Gian, Leprechauns, and benevolent mother-in-laws are all finite beings. Only the Christian God of the BiIble possesses all the logically necessary attributes of being God. Allah could be considered from your list. But there are other reasons for dismissing the Koran as His word.

                              All you have to do is presuppose them, explain away internal contradictions, wave off external contradictions, and your entity of choice is logically valid. So much for the usefulness of being logically valid.
                              I'm not self-delusional. I'm soundly convinced of the rational basis for my belief in the Lord. It is undeniabl.

                              SS

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Balder
                                Sentientsynth,

                                Are you familiar with Transdisciplinarianism, or of the "included middle" (both/and) logic that has been formalized by Stephane Lupasco?
                                No. Tell me more.

                                SS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X