IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
naimisharanya said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
OceanJ said:
Dude you must have really enjoyed your Philosophy of Religion college course.
It doesn't matter whether we dismiss Christianity or any other religion, that's not the real issue.
The bottom line is no one knows why there's something rather than nothing. No one knows where the Singularity that caused the Big Bang that created our known Universe originated.
What's very, very, very interesting - is that we cannot imagine a state of pure nothingness.
This is the bottom line. You can dismiss any particular religion or deity, but you can't explain where time & space & singularities originate from.
Thus, the possibility for higher-beings and gods. |
I have never really understood that conclusion. Just because we can't explain it that doesn't mean we should put extra focus on the higher-beings possibility. The mere thought of a higher being is the result of a human brain thinking, and so is Batman and the easter bunny.
Everything that we can think of is a possibility, and there is nothing to suggest that a higher being creating the world is more likely than anything else that we can think of. Not to mention that essentially what you'd do when trying to explain the world's creation by a god is explaining something unexplainable with an unexplainable explanation. It makes no sense.
|
Until the source of consciousness is localized, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. And this is due to your own (clearly) inherent adherence to the empirical method.
It is taken as a mere product of the mechanistic function of our brain's hardwiring that this singular experience of consciousness has come about. This directly implies that the same experience can be had by a programmed, virtual brain in a hypothetical computer. This proof is what you require.
If on the other hand it cannot be proven, then the postulate that consciousness is a product of an entity external (read seperate) to the body must at the very least be considered.
Since this consciousness is singular, it can discretely be summized. I.e. I have mine and you have yours. It may be postulated that:
a) These seperated consciouss entities are manifest from a primordial consciousness which has all the properties of the individual entities' consciousness, but it is expanded infinitely
The above is explained thoroughly in Vedanta. Erwin Schrodinger agrees:
"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary..."
b) There exists some primordial living entity from whom we have manifested these qualities of personhood. This is thoroughly explained in texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.
"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein
If you think these are unreasonable, then I will start arguing that you are conditioned as much as the Christians you are crusading against in the first place.
|
I never said that a higher being creating the universe should not be considered. Until we know, everything should be considered, and your post is most certainly not unreasonable.
I must admit though that my lacking English skills makes it hard for me to make out your point. Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant.
|
Sorry about the English. I tend to not hold back.
"Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant."
There certainly is no emperical evidence for a grand Creator. I was building a theology of the soul on the fact that we have no (really nothing) understanding of consciousness, and a good model for explaining it exists already.
You see, certain classes of learned men aren't so interested in emperic proof. I give you a striking example - mathematicians. They don't want to measure anything. Sure, the have something called a "formal proof", but overall they are obsessed with the self-consistency of a particular set of truths.
I aimed to show that there are theologies that are in-depth, advanced, ancient and have also been accepted by western intellectual giants as being thoroughly significant.
I can gather from your writing ethos that you're not arrogant or ignorant.
