| Author
|
Agnosticism.
|
exotic
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
200
Posts :
5057
Posted : Jun 5, 2011 13:21:24
|
I've been reading the The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and it has made me wonder about how deep the rabbit hole goes about the existence of a deist God.
Quoting more or less directly from the book : There is TAP ( Temporary Agnosticism in practice ) , a kind of fence sitting in which there is a definite answer about the existence of god but we lack evidence to get there. and then there is PAP ( Permanent Agnosticism in practice ) where the existence or the non-existence of God is equi-probable meaning we will never know despite whatever any new evidence that could be presented.
So this is a question to all the agnostics out here and for the theists and the deists if you want to indulge in this discussion:
Which agnosticism seems/is more realistic / practical?? I'm sort of disconcerted by the questions this perspective puts forward. Either there is a god or there isnt if we were to limit ourselves to the material plane / dimension that we are in currently in ( its like saying whether that wall exists or not , either it is there or not there) OR the answer to the question whether god exists or not cannot be put to rest by unraveling how the universe came into being even if were to to find out how it did , if we were to assume/think that GOD isnt a factor in determining our existence; he could be variable in some other equation that has NOTHING to with the universe per say and the question of his existence or non existence would not affect us directly and can never be known.
I personally tend towards PAP.
Discuss.
  missing plug-in |
|
|
|
TranceVisuals
TranceVisuals
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
743
Posted : Jun 5, 2011 14:28
|
What about the Weak Anthropic Principle, or the Strong Anthropic Principle...
Personally I think it is intelligent design, but you don't need to postulate an external intelligence to the system, but the intelligence in and of the system, which, looking around, seems to be us. 
We are gOd. Which funny enough is what a sizeable number of mystical/spiritual/religious/esoteric/magic practicioneers have been saying since the beginning of recorded time. Even most of the Greek stories, are quite often just lists of lineage of the Gods children, to as then, modern greece, like Ovid's Metamorphisis.
Infact the "con"(spiracy) seems to be this notion of gOd as not being oneself (and everything else).
Of course being gOd, does mean that you can arrange the universe to appear as if one is not, which is partly why the Hindus tend to see their cosmology as a drama, and a game of hide of seek.
Of course, the important thing is find out for oneself, what one is. "Know thyself" as Socrates said, or Emerson's "look within for divinity". The only experience that really matters is your own, find out for yourself, and share with us the results of your endeavours. www.youtube.com/trancevisuals
2,000,000+ views and counting. |
|
|
|
Login
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
65
Posts :
1707
Posted : Jun 5, 2011 22:59
|
|
You dont neeed to follow a formula, just do it as you like it.
"The dedication to repetition — the search for nirvana in a single held tone or an endlessly cycling rhythm — is one of electronic music's noblest gestures." |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Jun 7, 2011 00:18
|
It ultimately comes to belief anyway. What we think we know about the Universe (and that includes our “inner world” too) is nothing but a model. It’s a map – not the territory itself. Just like in politics, acceptance or rejection of scientific or philosophical ideas is a matter of either democratic consensus (most scientists agree with your views) or dictatorship/conspiracy (Academy’s President is your father-in-law, you belong to the same cult as a bunch of Nobel committee members etc.). The commonly used rules for evaluating models and hypotheses are just that: man-made rules, subject to the same democratic or dictatorial enforcement I described above (and, therefore, just as questionable).
To make a long story short: it’s actually Universal Agnosticism, since it has nothing to do with God to begin with. We know nothing for sure, even our own weight or height. Not knowing whether God exists or not is just one of the infinite number of things we don’t know.
Having said that, in my own experience most agnostics subscribe to the kind of agnosticism not mentioned in the OP: the PC kind. They have a belief but deem it impolite (or politically imprudent) to share it. Most of them “internally” are atheists.
|
|
|
|
minus
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
103
Posts :
1614
Posted : Jun 9, 2011 02:36
|
long story short..
You dont exist,,,this you, is a farce material image composed of ego, or thoughts,or illusionary mind manifested seperations. Everything in this universe is made up of the same thing, no seperation just 1. if everything is 1, then you are same as any other, and is every other is nothing but the divine, then in a sense you r him! but there is choice, a concious entity within each of us who has been acknowledged the freedom to influence this material plane,,to become the slave of such a material entity or an egoistic plane is to be pulled towards greed,desire,,to overcome it, supersede it, trancend all the clutches of the material plane and its desires, and to be free of all sorrow is to live in absolute certainty in the poise of sigularity or the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
