by Mind_Cemetary » Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:59 am
It depends on what you mean by certainty. If we both agree that...
A.) consciousness is brain based.
B.) brain ceases to function at death.
...I doubt we can disagree on the conclusion (but then again I'm probably misreading you).
I mean empirical evidence rather than inference. We can hypothesize all we like based upon our (arguably limited) understanding of science, but until we actually kick the bucket ourselves, we can't really no for sure.
I tend to confuse religious types, atheists, and deists alike who find it difficult to understand that I have fused belief, non-belief, the destruction of God, and the acceptance of God into a single viewpoint.
It's quite an amzing feat to unify all those contradictory properties. It'd be nice to hear exactly how you did it.
Well, it actually isn't as complicated as you might think. The core of my beliefs is basically to take nothing for granted; in other words that, however likely or unlikely we might consider something to be, at least be open to the
possibility that the contrary might be true. Until just recently, I thought it was most likely that existence could be explained by a single conscious entity that I called "God". However, after having really considered this, I have come to the conclusion that, rather than a conscious entity, it is more likely that a system of logic and order is woven into the very fabric of the universe. This would mean that existence is the result of neither conscious effort OR coincidence, but that the precondition of Nature when not interfered with is to tend toward order rather than chaos. This has recently started to make more sense to me than a conscious entity although, as a matter of principle, I am still open to it. Furthermore, I am also open to the possibilty of pure coincidence, but I consider this to be probably LESS likely than a conscious entity.
Now, with regard to the destruction or acceptance of God, I am in favour of destroying God (assuming it would be possible) on the CONDITION that God's NATURE is as depicted in the Bible or most other religious texts. As I have said, I do not believe that God is "omnipotent" and, hence, do not believe that he is capable of sending people to either "Heaven" or "Hell" (neither of which I believe exist). When I believed in an actual conscious entity that created the universe, I would have argued that, such a being is NOT omnipotent and is capable of neither "rewarding" nor "punishing" people. However, in the event that I were find out that this was incorrect, I would consider it necessary to DESTROY such a God rather than accept it's existence (even if the ultimate result of attempting to do so was my OWN destruction rather than God's). However, whereas now I tend to believe in a system of inherent logic rather than a conscious entity, my views have been altered somewhat. I now
suspect that there is no conscious entity at all, be it omnipotent or otherwise. I would be willing to accept a God that was NOT omnipotent, but still doubt it's existence. Furthermore, I should underline the fact that I am againstthe idea of an omnipotent God is precisely because I consider myself an anarchist. I will not tolerate an authoritarian God in the same sense that I will not tolerate an authoritarian political ruler.
So, to sum up the way in which I have fused belief and non-belief, I should make clear that the way in which I do so has recently changed: Formerly, I believed that a conscious entity existed but was open to the possibility of this not being the case. Now, I do not believe in a conscious entity at all (although remain open to the possibility), yet do not believe that existence is a coincidence. This, of course, is because of my belief in a system of inherent logic (to which I am open to being INCORRECT).
As for the manner in which I have fused the destruction and acceptance of God, this too has changed with my
uncategorical rejection of a conscious entity in favour of inherent logic. Formerly, I believed in a conscious entity that was NOT omnipotent, was open to being wrong and, if I was, believed it necessary to destroy God. Now, I believe in
no conscious entity but, if one existed, would be in favour of destroying It on the condition that it was omnipotent.
[quote]It depends on what you mean by certainty. If we both agree that...
A.) consciousness is brain based.
B.) brain ceases to function at death.
...I doubt we can disagree on the conclusion (but then again I'm probably misreading you).[/quote]
I mean empirical evidence rather than inference. We can hypothesize all we like based upon our (arguably limited) understanding of science, but until we actually kick the bucket ourselves, we can't really no for sure.
[quote][quote]I tend to confuse religious types, atheists, and deists alike who find it difficult to understand that I have fused belief, non-belief, the destruction of God, and the acceptance of God into a single viewpoint.[/quote]
It's quite an amzing feat to unify all those contradictory properties. It'd be nice to hear exactly how you did it.[/quote]
Well, it actually isn't as complicated as you might think. The core of my beliefs is basically to take nothing for granted; in other words that, however likely or unlikely we might consider something to be, at least be open to the [i]possibility[/i] that the contrary might be true. Until just recently, I thought it was most likely that existence could be explained by a single conscious entity that I called "God". However, after having really considered this, I have come to the conclusion that, rather than a conscious entity, it is more likely that a system of logic and order is woven into the very fabric of the universe. This would mean that existence is the result of neither conscious effort OR coincidence, but that the precondition of Nature when not interfered with is to tend toward order rather than chaos. This has recently started to make more sense to me than a conscious entity although, as a matter of principle, I am still open to it. Furthermore, I am also open to the possibilty of pure coincidence, but I consider this to be probably LESS likely than a conscious entity.
Now, with regard to the destruction or acceptance of God, I am in favour of destroying God (assuming it would be possible) on the CONDITION that God's NATURE is as depicted in the Bible or most other religious texts. As I have said, I do not believe that God is "omnipotent" and, hence, do not believe that he is capable of sending people to either "Heaven" or "Hell" (neither of which I believe exist). When I believed in an actual conscious entity that created the universe, I would have argued that, such a being is NOT omnipotent and is capable of neither "rewarding" nor "punishing" people. However, in the event that I were find out that this was incorrect, I would consider it necessary to DESTROY such a God rather than accept it's existence (even if the ultimate result of attempting to do so was my OWN destruction rather than God's). However, whereas now I tend to believe in a system of inherent logic rather than a conscious entity, my views have been altered somewhat. I now [i]suspect[/i] that there is no conscious entity at all, be it omnipotent or otherwise. I would be willing to accept a God that was NOT omnipotent, but still doubt it's existence. Furthermore, I should underline the fact that I am againstthe idea of an omnipotent God is precisely because I consider myself an anarchist. I will not tolerate an authoritarian God in the same sense that I will not tolerate an authoritarian political ruler.
So, to sum up the way in which I have fused belief and non-belief, I should make clear that the way in which I do so has recently changed: Formerly, I believed that a conscious entity existed but was open to the possibility of this not being the case. Now, I do not believe in a conscious entity at all (although remain open to the possibility), yet do not believe that existence is a coincidence. This, of course, is because of my belief in a system of inherent logic (to which I am open to being INCORRECT).
As for the manner in which I have fused the destruction and acceptance of God, this too has changed with my [i]un[/i]categorical rejection of a conscious entity in favour of inherent logic. Formerly, I believed in a conscious entity that was NOT omnipotent, was open to being wrong and, if I was, believed it necessary to destroy God. Now, I believe in [i]no[/i] conscious entity but, if one existed, would be in favour of destroying It on the condition that it was omnipotent.