the village idiot

I would say that philosophy and theology are inseperable from our day to day scenario's. In our day to day we act based on what be believe the nature of these things to be. These actions can make a very big difference.

Pretty sure Stubby would tell you it's his personal experience of a universal constant.

Great example!

That's almost certainly a lot more profound than you meant it to be Stubby!

Don't be shy Wes I am limited to only asking the questions that occur to my fundamental nature of the universe. You may dig up some much more useful ones. So far this thread has been beautifully non-judgemental, and I'm sure we can continue in that vein.

Indeed, but bear in mind this is very different from saying that there should be no consequences for the actions.

OK, excellent. So in your view the 'fundamental nature of the universe' is conciousness, and you refer to this nature as God. I would imagine most atheists are not repulsed by the use of the word God, it just causes a bit of needless confusion as the word God means some very specific things to different people, and to many of them these things amount to a lot more than just pure awareness. I understand and agree with your view that conciousness is fundamental. Without it nothing can be 'known' to exist. It is also safe to say that existence without conciousness would be pointless. Am I right in thinking that you believe nothing can exist without conciousness being present? Also, could you explain your conclusion that conciousness is eternal? Sorry for all the probing but it is clear that a lot of us find this stuff fascinating, and I for one have no philosophy training and need things spelt out ad nauseum. Part of my brain thinks that sometimes the conclusions of philosophical thinking (although technically accurate) can be a barrier to achieving further real understanding.

I am quietly confident that if we continue to pile our ridiculous ideas one on top of the other, then inevitably, at some critical juncture, the sheer mass of stupidity will collapse in on itself, revealing the fabled black hole of inescapable truth. Or something like that.

Apologies to Onetruth, I just realised you had already answered the 'what is God to you?' question: Meaningful way to describe God: easier to say what God is not. God is not some Uber-King ruling/creating the world. God does not love the good and hate evil, dictate morality or pass judgment. (Except that, for all of these things, it can sometimes be useful to imagine that there is a god which has these properties). God is that which illuminates the world. The source of beauty, love, truth, wonder - things that could never be reduced to an algorithm or chemical process. Our own consciousness, which is unchanging and disinterested. Still interested to hear why you call this God? Is it your understanding that God is (and only is) conciousness? I presume you are not a 'conciousness arising from the brain' adherent, ie. no brain-no consciousness?

Vesp sometimes leads me to think that he believes he IS the Resurrection!

No need to apologise Vesp, my argument dictates that you could not have done otherwise!

Great stuff Ti I was specifically after Onetruth's notion of God, but it will no doubt be good and really helpful to get all interpretations on the table. Much kudos to you and woodwizzard as a lot of people keep this stuff to themselves, and when conversation stops, so do some possibilities to grow. Hopefully, in the interests of thread integrity, we can keep some emphasis on the free will implications.

No argument with that Bob.

One issue with that from Ti's perspective (apologies for speaking for you Ti) is it makes a mockery of the idea of heaven and hell and what can be done to avoid either. (From my perspective an eternity spent anywhere would be hell). If Christianity, and your interpretation of the way things are, are both correct then God has already determined from birth whether an individual is destined for heaven or hell. Christianity cannot function under these conditions. I appreciate it is a fog like topic to get a hold of, but I do think we need some kind of solid idea about the nature of this God. Why is there a need to infur the existence of one. If it can't be described, how can you get to a position of 'knowing' it exists. Can you have a go at describing God, and explain why you attach that word to the phenomenon?

What a joy!! Can I get back to you in about 6000 years when I've had adequate time to digest that properly? In the meantime, I can see myself holding tightly (wisely or not) to the premise that "exploring our own manifestations of reality is the most beneficial thing we can do".

Presumably if the buyer had a little fetching arch or similar for the thin end, they could lift the whole length off the ground for clean extraction?

He seems to have the necessary inbetweeny bit.

Very nice! I don't personally need that attachment but I kind of wish I did. Is it not a handy attachment for your multione?

If you are of a certain age and thinking about a brain automatically controlling a body, it would probably be a bit weird if you didn't think about the numskulls. They have certainly popped up in my deliberations but I don't find it at all spooky that it has occured to other people aswell. Probability is all thats 'going on' here.

I think I may well be mouthing off from a position a couple of rungs down the 'philosophical truth' ladder than you? My feeling is that it might be the last level from where there is any leverage for any form of effective positive guidance to appreciate logically how things are in the 'reality' 99.99% of us inhabit. God that sounds pretentious, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. Do you agree with this description, and if so, do you consider my efforts a futile exercise? If (as you suggest) ultimately nothing is in fact truly and persistently real, should we be making efforts to understand our own manifestations of reality? Please be as brutal as you see fit. This is all great stuff! I'd also be really interested to hear how you came to hold the views that you do.

Would you agree with the proposition that everyone is mentally limited? It feels so good to be asking questions rather than trying to answer them!

The numskulls is quite a nice analogy but not accurate as you then have to ask who is directing the numskulls? I understand your concerns about the possible break down of society but I don't think this will happen if we truly understand the situation and are clever about it. I don't believe that anyone 'chooses' to commit a crime. They are led to commiting a crime by a continuum of factors beyond their control. We can stop some of the criminal events from taking place by broadly publicising the necessary reaction (removing said criminal individual from society). This threat and action serves a valuable purpose and should stay in place. Nothing really changes in practice when you reject free will. It just becomes impossible to hate the criminal, and whilst we should still lock people up to protect society we should do everything we can to find ways to stop the behaviour occuring again, and stop it occuring in the first place in the population at large. Our desire to punish is purely based around our misconception that people have free will, and could have chosen to do other than what they did. Ultimately we need to cure criminal behaviour, not punish it because it's bad. Until then we need to continue to lock unlucky people up.

I agree that 'the present' as you are refering to it is kind of it's own space, and it is right to distinguish it in principle to all the time and events that lead up to it. But the present is not a space open to manipulation in any causal way in it's own time. Any capacity to resist our immediate mental desires is predicated on past exposures. This applies whether you believe choice can occur in the present moment or not. We can observe the consequences in the present moment and this can radically alter the next, but as I see it, at a fundamental level there is no escaping the cause and effect cycle.

No, you have it right, but there is an important caveat. Even if we accept logically and scientifically that the self is an illusion we still live almost completely in it's grip. The only reliable way we know thus far to permanently leave it behind is to become an olympic level meditator. It takes decades of doing little else but meditation to undo the decades of 'self' reinforcement. Who wants to sit in a cave doing nothing for 40 years? It is simply not practical or particularly desirable in modern Western society. It is OK to refer to Vesp as 'him' because to all intents and purposes he is a 'him'. Despite understanding the illusion Vesp is still gripped by the illusion, as am I. Understanding the nature of the illusion gives some insight , and other people become infinitely more interesting (and blameless). But one can't relieve oneself of the influence of the illusion by just thinking about it. It takes years of concerted, concentrated effort. Does that make any sense? There is an anecdote of a chap who completely lost his sense of self for a couple of years quite by accident. The consequences were profound. I'll tell the story in the next post.