by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible
Terry, very often we seem to swim through some very similar currents you and i. You said:
The test of our sanity often comes to whether we can distinguish between what we need to regard as true as distinguished from what is actually true.
Utilizing the avenue of what is true, is what I was attempting to point to in my above thread -- which seems to have gotten lost in a discussion which was brewing beforhand...my mistake, bad timing. My parents were right; I'm no good.
j
I mean it makes sense to look for truth within Truth, doesn't it? And to think, we don't need to go anywhere, or join anything. Consciousness is the closest and most intimate of everything.
Utilizing the avenue of what is true, is what I was attempting to point to in my above thread -- which seems to have gotten lost in a discussion which was brewing beforhand...my mistake, bad timing. My parents were right; I'm no good.
Oh, I couldn't agree with you more when you target CONSCIOUSNESS as key.
Consciousness is NOT automatic.
No way.
Consciousness is a choice and a real skill.
It takes a lifetime to gain enough skill to use our consciousness and to avoid lapsing into cheap imitation substitutes for same. Among those feckless substitutes for consciousness I'd cite:
1.Other people's opinion (general consensus with investigation)
2.Superstition (avoidance due to fear)
3.Authority (letting others actually do your thinking for you)
4.Lazy investigation (only reading what you already agree with to bolster your confidence you are right).
5.The reassurance of a group (like minds reinforcing each other's prejudices)
6.Knee-jerk reaction without asking for clarifications (and then listening good and hard)
8. Failure to detect a missing element that renders a sequence suspicious :)
Consciousness is NOT automatic.
Well, Terry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Consciousness comes before everything else. It, is the foundation upon which everything else arises. Perhaps many discount and ignore it because it is so "automatic", so certain and present.
I am not one who subscribes to the notion that great learning and evolution within a person is necessary for recognition of inner truth; Simply because it is not something that needs learning or a progression to. I mean, it's here already. It is the very Core of what we are.
Perhaps all we need is a good loving whack! across the head, to remind us of what is real and important. Why support peoples ignorance by telling them this is too deep or they need time, or they are fools. We're all fools. Well, I am, anyway.
j
CONSCIOUSNESS?
If you turn a radio on and don't tune it to a frequency you get white noise. Static.
But, by carefully turning the dial you select a particular station and all the content it contains.
Consciousness is not merely being awake. Many kids in school are awake but daydreaming. The focus on a particular thing is consciousness in its fullest and most useful sense.
Daydreaming ABOUT some particular problem can be conducive to its solution; but, that is focusing on some particularity.
Back to the TOPIC above...............
We create GOD and live with "him". It is impossible for "him" to not exist. (At least as long as we exist). But, objectively, HE is not out there...but...in here (inside our thinking).
Why?
We like it that way.
Losing track of the difference between internally generated fictions (treated like non-fictions) can be darned convenient in giving us necessary confidence to face a chaotic life. But, it is a poor substitute for skills in actually dealing with life on a realistic basis.
I might act like I'm rich, think like I'm rich, project confidence that comes from great wealth--all possible and seemingly "real" until I sit down and write a very large check.
Religious people have in their pocket a very large check written on a bank account in the sky that they can never cash. Otherwise, the whole illusion vanishes.
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Answer: they try to cash God's bad checks and they bounce!!!
Making excuses for God's bad checks is REALLY what Christianity is all about.
Hi everybody,
I would like to take a moment to comment on some statements made in this thread. I haven't taken the time to read all of the posts here, so forgive me if I end up repeating what somebody else said or haven't addressed a good point that somebody else has said. Well, here it goes:
Stephen John Gault said this:
"If you can't prove god exists, you have to allow for the possibility/probability."
tetrapod.sapien said that:
"because pure proof is not forthcoming in deciding the HIGHEST LIKELIHOOD of truth."
I'd like to comment on these statements since they seem to imply that a proposition's being highly likely is a sufficient condition for being justified in believing that a proposition is true. Here I will argue that this assumption is demonstrated to be false by what is known as the Lottery Paradox. Lets assume the following:
p1= a proposition stating "ticket #1 will lose"
n= the number of tickets being between say, 100 and several million.
So the probability of p1 being false is 1/n and the probability of p1 being true is 1-1/n. With this knowledge, I will propose the following argument:
(a1) The probability for p1 being true is 1-1/n.
(a2) If the probability for p1 being true is 1-1/n, then I am justified in believing that p1 is true.
Therefore,
(a4) I am justified in believing that p1 is true.
The conclusion is problematic, since all other propositions claiming a ticket will lose (p2,p3,...pn) have the same probability of being true (1-1/n). For instance, my ticket #1 has the same probability of losing as Grumby's ticket #3 and Blondie's ticket #n. So everybody can be justified for believing that their ticket will lose. Now things get worse when we conjoin all of our propositions:
(p1&p2&p3&...&pn)
Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with formal logic, conjunction is a truth function between propositions (statements that are either true or false). Observe the following argument structure:
1. P
2. Q
Therefore,
3. P&Q
That's what I'm doing when I'm conjoining propositions. All I'm stating is that if I assume P is true and if I assume Q is true, then P&Q is true. Each proposition which is about a ticket (i.e. p1,p2,etc.) and I am now conjoining each of these propositions into one large proposition, (p1&p2&p3&...&pn). But this large proposition has it's own probability just as each of it's conjuncts do.
Lets suppose that P has a probability of .99 (very high) and suppose that Q also has this probability. If we conjoin these propositions and get P&Q, then we multiply their probabilities to get the probability of the conjunction.
P&Q= 0.99 x 0.99 = 0.9801
As you can see, the probability of this conjunction being true is less than it's conjuncts! It does not matter how highly probable its conjuncts are as long as they're below 1.00. As we can recall, our lottery propositions are extremely low to begin with, being 1-1/n. So if I have a lottery with 100 tickets then the probability each individual ticket has of winning is 1/100. If we subtract this fraction from 1, then we get a very large number, which is the probability it has of losing. So this large proposition, (p1&p2&p3&...&pn), has a high probability of losing.
But if we are justified in believing that this large proposition is true, then we're justified in believing that no ticket will win. But we know that some ticket will win. We cannot be justified in believing that both a ticket will win and no ticket will win. So it seems that premise a2 of my argument is false and being highly probable is not a sufficient condition for me to believe that a proposition is true.
What does this mean? It means that arguments that conclude the likelihood or unlikelihood of a hypothesis being true are irrelevent (assuming that there is nothing else wrong with the argument) since we cannot be justified in believing or disbelieving based on that likelihood. Does any of what I say make sense? Sorry if my response is too long.
Take a walk around a spring garden.
Watch a beautiful woman.
Study your hands.
Then appreciate the manifestation of the invisible artist or artists.
No faith needed.
No books required.
Religion need not apply.
I had a nice walk. How does that prove invisible artists? Are you trying to prove the existence of pixies?
I think, therefore I am Start believing lest I smite thee, vile doubter!
Seriously, though, if you are needing to stretch your legs I'd love to take the challenge. Is PM okay? I wouldn't want someone thinking my arguments were my genuine feelings or reasonings.
post a disclaimer with all your posts. LOL.
This may be off topic a little
There's almost no one in this thread who is actually on topic so far... so you fit right in. LOL.
*sigh*
Such a simple premise...
Really people.
Hey Cinema - you never answered my questions - its abit off to say no one is on topic when several people are actively debating it.
For those who said that God is an invisible God what about those people who saw God
Jesus was seen by many witnesses and he claimed to know God / be God.
Many prophets have seen God and recorded that experience in scripture.
Just for the arguement - this whole debate is exactly why JS vision was so important to the LDS faith - it clearly defined God as more than our invisible friend.
Then you have to add to the mix the millions of people who have had spiritual experiences - now this was my point about what evidences would be allowed - materialists would be inclined to reject anything of a spiritual nature as unprovable. There are however several instances of spiritual experience that have been shared (Toronto Blessing).
CinemaBlend
I had a nice walk. How does that prove invisible artists?
Natures art has a sense to it, so does the consciousness required to appreciate it. These things do not prove the existence of a personal god. What they can do is make us aware of a greater consciousness which we can choose to be a part of instead of remaining isolated.
Perhaps to many people god is an expression for a concept they cannot explain. In the process of trying to make this concept more understandable they attribute human qualities and gender to the concept of a god. It as this point that the whole concept becomes flawed.
I hope you enjoyed your walk!
