Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 90 of 90
  1. #76
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Seak View Post
    That's my point. You can't convince anyone of anything they don't want to believe.

    If you are convinced of those things, then I am sure they have become truths to you. Hence, what do we really know? It's what we choose to believe individually.
    Hence my assertion that God simultaneously exists and does not exist. Can you allow that?

  2. #77
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    Surely the concept of God exists. But the leap from concept to existence itself is the greatest leap of history.

    Concepts exist or can exist for anything, and they need not even be consistent. But a concept is a concept and a thing s a thing.

    Better to locate the thing and then derive a concept from it. When we create things from concepts, we do the thing a misservice frequently. This is true for things that we can create. Things that pre-exist our creation of them can be described and analyzed only.

    What is God?

  3. #78
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Concept and existence are the same thing until proven otherwise, are they not?

  4. #79
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    Phenomenologically, they are different.

  5. #80
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    No they aren't: we are taught that God is inside and outside of us, that our soul comes from God, that God gave us life. The logic of the concept is the same as the logic of the existent thing. God exists, therefore we exist; We exist, therefore God exists. Our world and it's life, and chiefly our life, is the bond between the abstraction of God and the existent object of God. So they're the same, even phenomenologically.

    As we both know, that's what's so frustrating about it. It's completely cyclical and self-reinforcing. But no matter how you slice it, God is simultaneously subject and object, existent and non-existent.

  6. #81
    and I like to party. Seak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,413
    How do you explain the many definitions of what God is?
    Last edited by Seak; December 18th, 2008 at 04:33 PM.

  7. #82
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    There are very, very few where the primary importance of God isn't creation. Sure, there are many stories of many Gods that have done all kinds of things. But in pretty much every single definition of God, he's the one who created everything. The created prove the existence of the creator. Same logic.

  8. #83
    and I like to party. Seak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,413
    I thought so, I was just wondering if there was more to it. Thanks.

  9. #84
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,695
    But in pretty much every single definition of God, he's the one who created everything.
    Only in the monotheistic religions, of which the big three dominate euro-american cultures like no others.

  10. #85
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Seak View Post
    I thought so, I was just wondering if there was more to it. Thanks.
    I try to follow the KISS principle wherever possible

  11. #86
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Hereford Eye View Post
    Only in the monotheistic religions, of which the big three dominate euro-american cultures like no others.
    Even the polytheistic religions have pretty solid creation myths at their core, usually involving just one significant deity who later gives birth to several others. Some version of a time god and/or a sun god, usually. But the core item of importance, IMO, is the creation itself.

    I'm wracking my brain (and the internet) for a religion where there is no creation, or where the creation wasn't performed by a god...

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Fung Koo View Post
    I'm wracking my brain (and the internet) for a religion where there is no creation, or where the creation wasn't performed by a god...
    Isn't that along the lines of Gnosticism? In fact, isn't that pretty much Buddhism?

    Also might wanna look into Advaita Vedanta... if you can call that a religion.
    Last edited by Monty Mike; February 17th, 2009 at 01:42 PM.

  13. #88
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    I believe that in Gnosticism the creator God of our universe is the Demiurge -- a sort of evil-ish God that wanted to create a reality separate from the pure reality of the Gods (what we call "material" existence). Achieving gnosis, for a human, is to achieve godliness and therefore escape this world into the true world of the Gods (though humans, being children of the demiurge's material universe, are material and therefore unlikely to achieve gnosis). Our reality is just one subordinate creation of the God universe.

    In Buddhism it's a little more complicated. The Buddha never answered the questions directly, as I understand it, so the whole thing is supposition based on the tenets of Buddhism. Here's my (probably terrible) understanding of the Buddhist creation theory...

    Creation is dictated by samsara (cause and effect force that gives rise to life) via karma (basically, the degree to which one has attained enlightenment), and there are (at least) two sorts of passing that lead to (at least) two sorts of creation.

    Individual reincarnation operates on karma, with the goal of life being to achieve a purity of karma such that the nature of reincarnation becomes ever more distilled as we re-live. A movement toward individual purity, that is, as a total and correct conception of the nature of reality -- Nirvana. The theory goes (as I understand it), that when one achieves the purest distilled karmic reality (Nirvana), you become a Buddha. The kalpa (age/era) then ends (that is, the universe [your universe?] effectively ends). Then, the universe is created/reincarnated with the first creation stemming from karmic purity (no worries -- no Armageddon to worry about. it sounds like it's just a fracture of multiple existences). Which is to say, the individual who first achieves the purest karma triggers the end of one universe (their universe, in which their karma is trapped by samsara), and in effect becomes the creator of the next universe -- their universe.

    Supposedly, the Buddha didn't want to put it into concrete terms lest it seem like a competition, which is a distraction from enlightenment.

    Traditionally (according to some, anyway), the last pure karmic being that formed this universe is Brahma, the creator God from Hinduism. Buddhism is descended out of Hinduism, and the Buddha never commented on the origin story, so it's all up in the air. It's notable that the Devas in Buddhism are the Brahmins, though.

    But beyond that, I don't think there's a whole lot of agreement amongst the various sects of Buddhism to give any sort of straight answer on creation. Creation is ultimately self-dictated, but one can only define one's own creation when they've achieved Nirvana, can therefore sidestep samsara, and gain the power of the Devas (literally, the power of Gods) to dictate their own creation.

    ---

    Putting Buddhism and Gnosticism beside each other like that shows some weird commonalities I hadn't noticed before. Hmmm....

  14. #89
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Evidence that our sense of wrong is the same as our sense of icky?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../lifeMain/home

  15. #90
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    Oh My God.

    That's all I can say.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •