Existence

[Sir Burr]

I'm with you Autonomous Unit.

The meaning and purpose of life is LIFE.

If you believe in the theory of evolution, then either all life must have souls or, none of them do.

Existence, reality or life doesn't care about individuals. It is indifferent.

I think once you are dead, you are dead.

Kind of egocentric to believe in "the great beyond". Though if it gives comfort to someone, who am I to take issue?

[suegha]

Jockstar wrote "if they ever prove that life exists on other planets, Then all religion goes out the window."

Why is this? Why should this be the case? The bible does not teach that life exists or does not exist on other planets. Please explain?

เสือ

[Shola]

Time is a man made principle.

Before man, no time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Time I think is mans attempt to break up naturally occuring cycles into segments more manageable and convienient for his living. "Time" exists whether or not man is here, the natural cycles that is earth revolving etc will continue regardless if we are around. Things change continously and "Time" is mans attempt at defining the change as I said above into segments he can quantify. 1 year of change, 10 years of change, a million years of change...The time system man has created however does work out nicely in Physics and equations that use time, if the time segments we used was not accurate then how could we use such simple equations as Speed = Distance / Time. If time does not exist how would you define speed? The rate of change from you being in one location and another location?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Time does NOT exist if man is not here, things will progress, but time as we know it will cease to be. We invented the time system just so we could explain such equations as Speed=Distance/Time.

Remember we only percieve the universe in our uniquely human way, who's to say we even percieve it correctly?

Time is flexable and changes at high speeds, it is not static.

We percieve our time due to the limitations of our existance.

We make our own time.

No humans, no human form of time.

Anyway I'm boggeling my own brain here so!

[Kringle]

I will not say everyone in this but a lot of people have to believe in "SOMETHING" to make their life more meaningful or that they are going to a better place after this. Oh well, that's life and you can believe "anything" you want to believe. So sad that people (as just another animal) can't understand evolution. If whoever created us in "his own image" then why did we change so much over the millions of years and what does he/she look like?

People as WE know them are all that anyone has to deal with on a daily basis and they are the ones that you have to please or not please. I'm way too old to believe in a "omniputent power" because if there was one he/she is doing a screwed up job.

[maikee]

Lots of cool food for thought in this thread. I disagree about this not being a good conversation over beer... I've had a few Big Chang's and it's even more interesting. It only becomes confrontational when some folks need to classify others thoughts that are different from their own with arrogant psychobabble terms. But if thats what they need to do to find comfort, then I guess that's cool too.

Since I DON'T know what happens when one die, I find it very interesting to investigate all the different interpretations. If someone presented me with 2 doors, one was to cease to exist as some sort of intelligent consciousness, or to choose door number 2, to go on to some sort of other plane of existense.. whatever that would be... I'd choose door number 2. Sure it's hyphothetical... but it's fun... kind of like discussing what you'll do with your 40 million in lottery winnings.

One of the posters said he thought it was pretty cool just living out his years here on this small little rock orbiting around a fairly normal sun among billions of suns in a big galaxy among billions of other galaxies in a universe (among many universes???) that originated from some infinitesimally small point (so the theory goes). It is cool.... but it be a heck of a lot more interesting if there was something else to it. I maintain, that logically speaking... Quantum physics makes the idea of metamorphosing?? into another plane of existence at least possible and it makes a lot more other interesting things, at least logically, "possible" instead of just PFM (Pure Farking Magic).

I think you folks who automatically dismiss the mind boggling ideas of what is "possible", are shortchanging yourselves a little bit. Cmon! open your minds a little bit.

[ArtfulD]

Time is a man made principle.

Before man, no time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Time I think is mans attempt to break up naturally occuring cycles into segments more manageable and convienient for his living. "Time" exists whether or not man is here, the natural cycles that is earth revolving etc will continue regardless if we are around. Things change continously and "Time" is mans attempt at defining the change as I said above into segments he can quantify. 1 year of change, 10 years of change, a million years of change...The time system man has created however does work out nicely in Physics and equations that use time, if the time segments we used was not accurate then how could we use such simple equations as Speed = Distance / Time. If time does not exist how would you define speed? The rate of change from you being in one location and another location?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Time does NOT exist if man is not here, things will progress, but time as we know it will cease to be. We invented the time system just so we could explain such equations as Speed=Distance/Time.

Remember we only percieve the universe in our uniquely human way, who's to say we even percieve it correctly?

Time is flexable and changes at high speeds, it is not static.

We percieve our time due to the limitations of our existance.

We make our own time.

No humans, no human form of time.

Anyway I'm boggeling my own brain here so!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats what I said in my post, time is mans attempt at quantifying rates of change into something that he can manage and relate to.

[meom]

If you can imagine a universe with no time or space, you have a good idea of what it was like before the big bang.

Can there be thought without time or space?

[Thomas_Merton]

IMHO these discussions have little relevance to reality.

What is relevant is this world as we experience it. Debates such as to the nature of suppositions (and opposites to reality) such as the so-called big bang theory, are nothing more than intellectually contrived diversions from the imperative of perceiving the “now” so essential to anyone who wishes to experience true life within the incomprehensibility that is our Universe.

There is only now. What has happened, has already happened and is gone; what might happen, might never happen. There is only now.

A story to illustrate:

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?

A student bravely replied yes, he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes, sir," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil."

The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.

The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does".

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colours and study the various wavelengths of each colour. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young mans name --- Albert Einstein

Therefore, I say theories like the big bang theory only have value in that they seek to confirm our existence.

But as I am, and I am here, and I know I am here: I need no further proof.

Edited March 25, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[Khun Larry]

So many physicists believe the "universe" was created by a big bang. Fair enough. What I wanna know is what created the big bang, what existed before the big bang, even if there was just an infinite expanse of nothingness(kind of  a mind spinner because AFAIC even an infinite vaccum is "something"), where did the materials for the big bang come from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You will not find your answer here as most of the postere here are farangs.

Your question requires the infinite wisdom and application of high level abstract thought produced only in the Thai school system.

chonbot take note

[Vit42]

IMHO these discussions have little relevance to reality.

What is relevant is this world as we experience it. Debates such as to the nature of suppositions (and opposites to reality) such as the so-called big bang theory, are nothing more than intellectually contrived diversions from the imperative of perceiving the “now” so essential to anyone who wishes to experience true life within the incomprehensibility that is our Universe.

There is only now. What has happened, has already happened and is gone; what might happen, might never happen. There is only now.

A story to illustrate:

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although i agree with you on the relevancy of this debate, you're introduction of young albert einstein, while entertaining, has no basis on truth. The link below states that this is an erumour and that there is no evidence of this event ever taking place! Or perhaps the lack of evidence proves that it exists? Anyhow, i doubt if einstein would have used this argument since both heat and light are measurable quantitities and to make an analogy to unmeasurable quantities of god and evil is non-sensical. Einstein's many references to god were not to promote god's existence but to implicate the things in the universe that can't be explained, beyond the non-randomness that science can explain.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

[Thomas_Merton]

... The link below states that this is an erumour and that there is no evidence of this event ever taking place! Or perhaps the lack of evidence proves that it exists? Anyhow, i doubt if einstein would have used this argument since both heat and light are measurable quantitities and to make an analogy to unmeasurable quantities of god and evil is non-sensical. Einstein's many references to god were not to promote god's existence but to implicate the things in the universe that can't be explained, beyond the non-randomness that science can explain.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew someone would spot it

But you do open up the debate; we could go three ways:

• the nature of truth?

• the value of apocryphal stories?

• the use of analogies in argument?

However so everyone can have a drink and talk about the football, I will just end with a "true" quote from Albert Einstein:

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

IMHO that is speculation that means something!

Edited March 25, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[autonomous_unit]

Yes, it is not so much that this is a bad topic for beers but for beers with unknown personalities.

I enjoy hearing what other people think, and particularly if they are the type who can explain why they think what they do... it's equally interesting to see HOW people view their own learning (or conditioning, if we want to bring in the Dogs Thinking Or Not topic) as much as WHAT they learned.

But as a kid watching adult political debates in the barbershop etc., I soon realized I did not have the patience or interest to get into discussions with people who cannot be satisfied with lingering differences of opinion. I think it is odd how people can sometimes get enraged by the mere presence of conflicting beliefs and need to snuff them out.

The irony, I suppose, is that while I think my viewpoint is rational, I disapprove of missionary sentiments since I cannot be sure I am right; so people with my views will remain a silent minority while others go around trying to spread their "truths". Acceptance of the unknowable pretty much leads to ambivalance, I guess.

[Thomas_Merton]

...We perceive Life through our senses of touch, sound, sight, hearing and smell. We hear sounds and see sights that are not sounds and not sights, they are just the brains interpretion waves of various frequencies from light waves bouncing off substances, or sound waves bouncing on the ear drum... both are then changed into electrical impulses. So, when a tree falls in the forest, whether there is anybody there to hear it or not, the tree falling does not make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air is all.

When hearing or seeing, or touching etc etc we all perceive differently... depending on the quality of the eyes or the shape of the ears. We all perceive the truth/s to be different, depending on our programming/nature/nurture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are touching the world of metaphysics here.

It is quite true, for many reasons, we are rarely aware of the truth. Not the least of these reasons is the variations found within us as human beings. But, I believe the prime factor, is that our receptive mechanisms – our senses and our awareness – are completely messed up. Clogged by our previous experiences and the thoughts, ideas and values of others; often too centred on ourselves.

We need to clean these processes as often as we clean our teeth.

The Far East (Thailand especially) teaches us how to do this. A central point of Buddhism is meditation. This (e.g. half an hour everyday) spent concentrating alone on the light of a candle or saying a mantra (“Om Madi Pa” or “Hail Mary” or “God is Great” – choose your religion, choose your mantra), cleans our perceptions, heightens our awareness and brings us one miserable step closer to experiencing the truth.

Or at the very least you save money by spending half an hour less in the pub.

[Thomas_Merton]

For a long time now, I have thought that the state of 'dreaming' is the brains way of 'defragging' itself. Clearing up the clogged mess of information taken in during the waking hours. Much as the computer needs defragging. We dream every 90 minutes during sleep and often wake up immediately after a dream, or during a dream. These are the dreams we remember. Most of the time they are nonsensical, which I think is caused by the brain trying to make sense of all the jumble... of sights, sounds, thoughts, perceptions etc etc.

Defragging and dreaming could be analogous. Whilst defragging may make order in you file system, it does not, as dreaming does not, differentiate between what is garbage and what is not. Defragging will not remove the viruses, worms or adware throughout your machine. In just the same way dreaming makes no quality analysis on opinions formed as a result of e.g. the front page of the Sun or points of view adopted after overhearing some brainless so-called celebrity on TV (or even some fool on the Thai forum). More importantly, dreaming will only wrestle with, and often submits to, the conflicts created by the effects of the pressures of a materialistic society. Dreaming cannot remove these problems.

The problem that you have hit on here, I think, is the problem of the 'ego' . Meditation helps us to get away from the egocentric self. Not sure that Mantras etc need to be the thing to concentrate on, but to concentrate on our perceptions and try evaluating them outside of the ego.

You are right here. As to the techniques: greater minds than yours or mine, whatever the tradition, seem to agree on those.

The only truth I could accept is something that I can find no argument about. As there are many ways of viewing a subject, object or thought, I find myself in the same position as Socrates and Voltaire... "The only thing I can be certain of, is that I can be certain of nothing."  And, perhaps, that is the way Life is supposed to be... It simply 'IS'.

No. What we perceive, in the now, is all that we think there is. Life is what you make it.

We tend to always look for a purpose, or a reason for everything... but there may be no reason or purpose for Life. It may just exist for It's own sake, and nothing more.

And to end my Easter sermon, two quotes from men, who like myself disagree with this last statement of yours:

"I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we all are seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very motion of our life is towards happiness…" Dalai Lama

"Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others...for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day, I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of people, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received." Albert Einstein

[lional6]

There is no God.

There is existence and relevance.

Random chance is why we are here, not the hand made universe by an omnificent beings whim. The conditions were correct for life to happen especially not the “7 day shake and bake” we were made theory.

There is Existence and nobody can dispute that fact.

There is Relativity to our surroundings that substantiate our existence.

[Thomas_Merton]

"No. What we perceive, in the now, is all that we think there is. Life is what you make it." 

Sorry, but tell that to the starving man in Africa, who is burying his child that just died of starvation.

This is a terrible example you have chosen. Not only because of the tragedy you describe, but also because of the awful irony, of which you could not be aware: I worked for over 2 years for the IRC in Sudan and Eritrea. I have stood beside too many fathers weeping for their children.

And yet, not one of these families displayed any doubts in their faiths – Muslim in the Sudan or Christian in Eritrea. In fact their reactions turned me inside out. Not so much emotionally – you develop an emotional barrier in this work – but in a religious sense. These people were suffering the ultimate in pain and misery but they still believed!

Your sermon is ended with quotes from respected men indeed. The first begins with "I believe..." and ends with "So, I think..." He 'believes' we seek happiness. The second is also uncertain, "... sometimes seeming to a divine purpose."  And he believes that the prupose is we are here for the sake of 'others'. Both are idealist.

I am not searching for idealism... but realism... Absolute Truth.

Yes, the “I believes” are a big problem because they demonstrate an irrationality – an illogical “leap in the dark”. As Jews who accept the Old Testament’s laws as imperatives on how to live; as Christians who try to live their lives following Christ’s teachings; as Muslims who adopt the Koran as their life’s template; as Buddhists who accept the Dharma – all have taken this (by modern western standards) irrational, illogical leap in the dark to believe.

I know (as compared to “I believe”) that having once taken this step, slowly but slowly, one becomes aware of what is real and what is unreal. I am also aware, albeit in my stumbling, humanly ineffective way, that I am crawling painfully and at a snail's pace, closer to the Absolute and Ultimate Truth.

[konangrit]

I'm reading a great book right now that does a great job of explaining many of the recent discoveries in physics, cosmology, relativity, etc. Incredibly interesting stuff. Numerous great reviews from a wide variety of sources on this one.

Brian Greene: The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent thread.

I read Elegant Universe several years ago, excellent book. Infact I have it with me in Thailand now, but it is 5 years old and I'm sure science has moved somewhat on a bit. Is "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality

" available in Thailand? If not I guess I can order it from Amazon, do they deliver to Thailand safely?

As for the existance of God, I'm an Atheist. People generally tend to believe in whichever religion their parents taught them to believe in, which is usually defined by where they were born. So most Americans believe in Christianity, but some stone age tribes in Indonesia believe that crocodiles are Gods. I see no reason why one is any more valid or invalid than the other. I think it makes no sense for someone to say that their religion is correct, and all others are wrong.

[maikee]

I'm reading a great book right now that does a great job of explaining many of the recent discoveries in physics, cosmology, relativity, etc. Incredibly interesting stuff. Numerous great reviews from a wide variety of sources on this one.

Brian Greene: The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent thread.

I read Elegant Universe several years ago, excellent book. Infact I have it with me in Thailand now, but it is 5 years old and I'm sure science has moved somewhat on a bit. Is "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality

" available in Thailand? If not I guess I can order it from Amazon, do they deliver to Thailand safely?

As for the existance of God, I'm an Atheist. People generally tend to believe in whichever religion their parents taught them to believe in, which is usually defined by where they were born. So most Americans believe in Christianity, but some stone age tribes in Indonesia believe that crocodiles are Gods. I see no reason why one is any more valid or invalid than the other. I think it makes no sense for someone to say that their religion is correct, and all others are wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

konanggrit. The Elegant Universe is still pretty current (well for this laymen anyway). A lot of his latest book seems to just be his attempt at maybe explaing his first book in a slightly different way, with a few years of experiences thrown in. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was trying to capitalize on the popularity of his first book (and television program) purely for monetary gain. Still.... Very interesting reading.

Regarding your comment that you don't see any reason why one religion is any more valid or invalid than another. I can only agree. Purely from looking at religion as a whole it just doesn't make logical sense that one would be any more right than the other. I'd be pissed off if I was some rainforest Indian who croaked, or the Thai Monk who dedicated his life to Buddhism... thinking he had it right, only to get to the "pearly gates" and be told he wasn't welcome . My mother is a devout Christian and I have attempted to present this argument to her, and she'll hear none of it. So, we just don't have discussions like that.

One thing about your argument though... As an atheist shouldn't you believe that all religions are invalid? I guess I am just going by the definition of athiest:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I am caught in the middle at this point in my life (and I guess will probably remain this way). It's impossible for me to disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods. But then it is not possible for me to have any faith in any God or gods. I'm a "proof" kind of person. I do know this. It is impossible for me to know in this life that there DOES NOT exist a God, gods, another dimension of existence/consciousness, whatever. Hows that for riding the fence

I'm not that well read philosophically. I just have my own thoughts to go on. Maybe I am "egocentric", but I like thought that possibly we could continue through some sort of constant cycle being born/reborn, constantly learning, whatever. It "is" possible. At least going by the current breakthroughs in mathematics, there is, at least hypothetically, a mechanism for this to occur. It doesn't drive my life in any way, but, for me, it is very interesting to think about the possibilities.

I had a very good friend that died almost 15 years ago. He was in the hospital with acute leukemia basically existing (pain medication induced) somewhere deep in his mind... based on what he was saying, he was reliving some happy memories. His mother was asleep outside in the waiting room when she felt a warm "touch" her arm. She got up to check on her son and he had died the minute before. Whose to say that my friends' "soul", existing in some organized pattern of energy, wasn't able to inprint the idea of a "touch" onto his mothers thoughts as he was "passing on"? She DID feel something.. Maybe a coincidence... maybe not. I think he knew something bad was coming on though. About a month or so before he died, he started reading the Bible. Not going to church or anything... just reading the Bible. He seemed to pass on peacefully though, so for that I'm happy.

In the end... seems like Albert Einstein had it about right for our life now. (I like that quote Thomas_Merton )

"Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others...for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day, I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of people, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received." Albert Einstein

Regardless of what is on the other side (if there is another side), if we all lived our lives based on this quote, the world would be a much much better place.

Now. What really blows my mind though is the thought that the universe existed as a single point (nothing with a size of a Planck length, no Planck time). I pulled this off of www.physlink.com

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

So squeeze everything down in our universe.. Take away any "space", no planck length, no planck time.. nothing, and "it" all squeezes down to a single point? Pretty trippy

I can fathom (accept?) "eternity", "infinity". I can even fathom a "Universe Pump", a universe, that eternally expands and contracts. It makes accepting the idea of initial glob of Universe making stuff a lot more easy (However that came to be ). What intrigues me though, as a lot more others way way smarter than me, is the idea of an ever expanding, hence slowly dying Universe. Not very elegant and a little cold in its reality. They already theorize about Super Black Holes, black holes that can devour other black holes. Maybe that's what happens... You end up getting a black hole that is so colassally huge that it begins to slowly get a grip on the expansion (at least in a certain direction?). Once that grip takes hold though, I'd bet it grabs in a hurry and WHAM here we go all over again.

OK... just thought I'd end it with an idea kind of cooresponding with the OP question.

[autonomous_unit]

...

I know (as compared to “I believe”) that having once taken this step, slowly but slowly, one becomes aware of what is real and what is unreal. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you already know this, but the above statement is exactly the dividing point between a "rational" philosophy and a "faith-based" one. I come down on the other side of the fence, believing that I can only believe some things _more_ than other things, but never truly know anything. Science develops a system of theories that are interconnected, but no honest scientist would ever assert that any of them are absolute, hard fact. The most we can say is that they are not demonstrably inconsistent with observations so far. If I ever pretend to know something, it is understood as a practical assumption to simplify life decisions until I assume a new set of "facts".

My next comment treads dangerously close to sounding offensive, but for the sake of discussion let me try: I feel that people who willingly convert belief into knowledge are essentially deluding themselves for comfort's sake. If you were to share this view, you would strive to recognize and _counteract_ leaps of faith in your thinking, rather than embrace them! They distort our view of reality... I distrust all organized religions because I cannot draw the line between them and "cults", where the same sorts of self-reinforcing group-think and brain-washing techniques are applied to suppress individual, critical thought.

I am not suggesting that you are wrong and I am right, but to me this is the interesting kernel of difference. What makes some people go for one mental discipline or the other? Is it specific life experiences? Differences in physiological structure? Some combination of the two? I see the metaphysical question as: we must understand the nature of our mental existence before we can even bother with the existence that might surround it...

[konangrit]

One thing about your argument though... As an atheist shouldn't you believe that all religions are invalid? I guess I am just going by the definition of athiest:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That's correct, I do believe that all religions are invalid. I find the thought of going to Heaven or He11 after my death as believable as crocodiles being Gods.

As for the universe continually expanding, from what we know at present, there is nowhere near enough mass in the universe to slow the expansion down enough to produce a Big Crunch. There are many reasons why a "super" blackhole would not create a Big Crunch. For a start, the Blackhole would eventually run out of material within it's gravitational influence and would start to dissipate it's mass in "Hawking radiation".

[Thomas_Merton]

...

I know (as compared to “I believe”) that having once taken this step, slowly but slowly, one becomes aware of what is real and what is unreal. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you already know this, but the above statement is exactly the dividing point between a "rational" philosophy and a "faith-based" one. I come down on the other side of the fence, believing that I can only believe some things _more_ than other things, but never truly know anything. Science develops a system of theories that are interconnected, but no honest scientist would ever assert that any of them are absolute, hard fact. The most we can say is that they are not demonstrably inconsistent with observations so far. If I ever pretend to know something, it is understood as a practical assumption to simplify life decisions until I assume a new set of "facts".

My next comment treads dangerously close to sounding offensive, but for the sake of discussion let me try: I feel that people who willingly convert belief into knowledge are essentially deluding themselves for comfort's sake. If you were to share this view, you would strive to recognize and _counteract_ leaps of faith in your thinking, rather than embrace them! They distort our view of reality... I distrust all organized religions because I cannot draw the line between them and "cults", where the same sorts of self-reinforcing group-think and brain-washing techniques are applied to suppress individual, critical thought.

I am not suggesting that you are wrong and I am right, but to me this is the interesting kernel of difference. What makes some people go for one mental discipline or the other? Is it specific life experiences? Differences in physiological structure? Some combination of the two? I see the metaphysical question as: we must understand the nature of our mental existence before we can even bother with the existence that might surround it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Despite what you are concluding, it is not belief or knowledge that separates us:

The master of Kennin temple was Mokurai, Silent Thunder. He had a little protege named Toyo who was only twelve years old. Toyo saw the older diciples visit the master's room each morning and evening to receive instruction on sanzen or personal guidance in which they were given koans to stop mind-wandering.

Toyo wished to do sanzen also.

"Wait a while," said Mokurai. "You are too young."

But the child insisted, so the teacher finally consented.

In the evening little Toyo went at the proper time to the threshold of Mokurai's sanzen room. He struck the gong to announce his presence, bowed respectfully three times outside the door, and went to sit before the master in respectful silence.

"You can hear the sound of two hands when they clap together," said Mokurai. "Now show me the sound of one hand."

Toyo bowed and went to his room to consider this problem. From his window he could hear the music of the geishas. "Ah, I have it!" he proclaimed.

The next evening, when his teacher asked him to illustrate the sound of one hand, Toyo began to play the music of the geishas.

"No, no," said Mokurai. "That will never do. That is not the sound of one hand. You've not got it at all."

Thinking that such music might interrupt, Toyo moved his abode to a quiet place. He meditated again. "What can be the sound of one hand be?" He happened to hear some water dripping. "I have it," imagined Toyo.

When he next appeared before his teacher, Toyo imitated the dripping water.

"What is that?" asked Moturai. "That is the sound of dripping water, but not the sound of one hand. Try again."

In vain Toyo meditated to hear the sound of one hand. He heard the sighing of the wind. But the sound was rejected.

He heard the cry of an owl. This was also refused.

The sound of one hand was not the locusts.

For more than ten times Toyo visited Mokurai with different sounds. All were wrong. For almost a year he pondered what the sound of one hand might be.

At last little Toyo entered true meditation and transcended all sounds. "I could collect no more." he explained later, "so I reached the soundless sound."

Toyo had realized the sound of one hand.

[Thomas_Merton]

That's correct, I do believe that all religions are invalid.

Credo - a leap in the dark!

I find the thought of going to Heaven or He11 after my death as believable as crocodiles being Gods.

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a h*ll?"

"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.

"I am a samurai", the warrior replied.

"You, a soldier!" sneered Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar".

Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword.

Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably to dull to cut off my head."

Nobushige drew his sword.

Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of h*ll!"

At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, put away his sword and bowed.

"Here open the gates of paradise", said Hakuin.

[konangrit]

I haven't read the Blind watchmaker, so can't comment on hawking's thoughts in that book.

As for life first starting, this can be explained by different molecules in Earths early oceans combining to produce ever more complex molecules over time, which eventually resulted in a molecule which had the property of replication. Given the number of molecules and the length of time we're talking about, there would have been incomprehensible amounts of molecules combining and recombing to form different molecules with different properties that it would be very surprising in my mind if a molecule capaple of replicating never occured.

Evolution can be explained where the molecules replicated imperfectly resulting in some which were better at replicating than others. Obviously the ones which were better at replicating continued to replicate even though they had become different than the original replicating molecule. They had evolved.

I see no reason to suggest this was all an idea of a creator, given enough time (maybe 1 billion years for life to start, and a further 4 Billion years of evolution here on Earth) they were going to occur anyway.

But let's say a creator did create the Earth, don't you think he might have got bored of waiting 5 Billion years for a creature capable of worshipping him to evolve and forgotten about us already? Maybe the creators' life expectancy isn't that long and he has already died. Do you think his creator remembered him and gave our creator an afterlife? Or did his creator create reincarnation and reincarnated our creator as a zebra in our creators own created world, Earth. Now that would be ironic.

Nobody can disprove my belief that our God has already died and been reincarnated by his creator into a zebra, now if I can get enough people to believe me I can start my own religion with no basis in fact or reality.

[Thomas_Merton]

A little observation (because I am beginning to loose track of all the interesting points in this thread):

It always amuses me when people profess the intellectual position of an atheist, citing this book or that book as supporting their position. It reminds me of the Catholics who became Communists, carrying the Communist Manifesto around as though it was a Missal whilst swapping the photos of the Pope for posters of Lenin.

As I have said, atheism is an intellectual position that demands, as do scientific positions, one has evaluated all the evidence.

I do hope the seekers on this thread who profess this point of view have taken the time to read the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavagita , the Dhammapada etc.

Otherwise it would be only natural to conclude that their views are as irrational and illogical as the opinions of those who they accuse of being so, purely because they have a “non scientific” belief.

An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He realizes the person who is seeing it.

[konangrit]

A little observation (because I am beginning to loose track of all the interesting points in this thread):

It always amuses me when people profess the intellectual position of an atheist, citing this book or that book as supporting their position. It reminds me of the Catholics who became Communists, carrying the Communist Manifesto around as though it was a Missal whilst swapping the photos of the Pope for posters of Lenin.

As I have said, atheism is an intellectual position that demands, as do scientific positions, one has evaluated all the evidence.

I do hope the seekers on this thread who profess this point of view have taken the time to read the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavagita , the Dhammapada etc.

Otherwise it would be only natural to conclude that their views are as irrational and illogical as the opinions of those who they accuse of being so, purely because they have a “non scientific” belief.

An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He realizes the person who is seeing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those were all my own thoughts, none of my points were quotes from books. You, however, continue to quote others. Maybe the 12 year old boy needed to meditate to realise the answer his master required, however I assumed that would be the answer after reading the question. I have never "entered true meditation and transcended all sounds". Seems to me Toyo just had a low IQ and needed time to work out the answer his master was after.

As for evaluating all the evidence, I have read the Bible, there is no evidence in this book which has been verified. I assume you have read all of those books, so please be so kind as to tell me which one explains the creation of the Earth, life and man correctly, and which ones are incorrect. Personally I find the Australian Aboriginal belief that the universe was created from a cassowary egg quite appealing.

Edited March 27, 2005 by konangrit

[Thomas_Merton]

A little observation (because I am beginning to loose track of all the interesting points in this thread):

It always amuses me when people profess the intellectual position of an atheist, citing this book or that book as supporting their position. It reminds me of the Catholics who became Communists, carrying the Communist Manifesto around as though it was a Missal whilst swapping the photos of the Pope for posters of Lenin.

As I have said, atheism is an intellectual position that demands, as do scientific positions, one has evaluated all the evidence.

I do hope the seekers on this thread who profess this point of view have taken the time to read the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavagita , the Dhammapada etc.

Otherwise it would be only natural to conclude that their views are as irrational and illogical as the opinions of those who they accuse of being so, purely because they have a “non scientific” belief.

An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He realizes the person who is seeing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those were all my own thoughts, none of my points were quotes from books. You, however, continue to quote others. Maybe the 12 year old boy needed to meditate to realise the answer his master required, however I assumed that would be the answer after reading the question. I have never "entered true meditation and transcended all sounds". Seems to me Toyo just had a low IQ and needed time to work out the answer his master was after.

As for evaluating all the evidence, I have read the Bible, there is no evidence in this book which has been verified. I assume you have read all of those books, so please be so kind as to tell me which one explains the creation of the Earth, life and man correctly, and which ones are incorrect. Personally I find the Australian Aboriginal belief that the universe was created from a cassowary egg quite appealing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want my advice? Here we go:

1. Accept the cassowary egg

2. Accept the possibility there is a Supreme Being (force – whatever), higher than yourself and that This is the only Thing worthy of your absolute respect. If nothing else this helps keep the ego in check and puts know-it-alls like me in their place.

3. Stop speculating about matters upon which it is impossible to prove or disprove or on which you have no control. This not only refers to the metaphysical but also to banal everyday problems.

4. Live your life with respect for yourself.

5. Show this same respect for everyone.

6. Smile – be happy. Life is too short for anything else.

[autonomous_unit]

Despite what you are concluding, it is not belief or knowledge that separates us:

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it is the treatment of belief and knowledge that seems to divide us, though I am of course more interested in trying to find clarifying statements in this whole discussion than in learning specifically what your worldview contains... maybe I missed your whole point, because I found the sanzen story to be less than profound, and bordering on non sequitur. The value of those lessons is not in how some student gained insight, but that the student did so. This is what makes them "personal guidance", afterall, and why they require a master teacher's touch...

I think for most people in this discussion, "knowledge" or "knowing" represents a category of thoughts which are axiomatic: we use them in our reasoning without any concern that they are wrong, perhaps because we trust the source of the information (an external authority or our senses) or perhaps because we can derive it from other knowledge using reasoning methods we believe are sound. Conversely, I think "beliefs" or "believing" represents thoughts which are conjectures: we choose to adopt them but recognize that this was a choice of ours rather than an attempt at deduction from our existing knowledge.

I think you are using the terms in a compatible way, in claiming that adopting (by faith) an existing religious practice, you "know" that you become "aware of what is real and is unreal." I believe that this process of converting belief into knowledge, through faith, is very much at the center of the discussion. Those of us who are skeptics of religion do not claim to be right or wrong---we consider the problem to be unresolvable and question the soundness of "your" methods.

I disclaim the ability to have knowledge that is anything other than beliefs... beliefs which I, out of pragmatic necessity, choose not to question for some duration. I do not entirely trust my own senses or observations, and I certainly cannot trust another party as much as I do myself. I have no faith; I cannot trust! And to be clear, this is not because I somehow suspect myself of being sub-par, but rather because of my overall assessment of the human condition. I think knoweldge is a fool's game.

[konangrit]

1. Accept the cassowary egg

Humour?

2. Accept the possibility there is a Supreme Being (force – whatever), higher than yourself and that This is the only Thing worthy of your absolute respect. If nothing else this helps keep the ego in check and puts know-it-alls like me in their place.

I accept the possibility, however until I see some evidence, I'm not willing to believe that there is a supreme being. I do not accept that any "supreme being" is worthy of my respect anymore than any other living creature in this universe.

3. Stop speculating about matters upon which it is impossible to prove or disprove or on which you have no control. This not only refers to the metaphysical but also to banal everyday problems.

I like to speculate, I have an inquisitive mind like most humans. I do not, however, worry about things which are beyond my control. It would be pointless to do so.

4. Live your life with respect for yourself.

Don't really understand how I could live my life without respect for myself.

5. Show this same respect for everyone.

Most people, but not everyone. I would show no respect to Saddam Hussein, for example.

6. Smile – be happy. Life is too short for anything else.

Agree.

[Thomas_Merton]

Despite what you are concluding, it is not belief or knowledge that separates us:

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it is the treatment of belief and knowledge that seems to divide us, though I am of course more interested in trying to find clarifying statements in this whole discussion than in learning specifically what your worldview contains... maybe I missed your whole point, because I found the sanzen story to be less than profound, and bordering on non sequitur. The value of those lessons is not in how some student gained insight, but that the student did so. This is what makes them "personal guidance", afterall, and why they require a master teacher's touch...

I think for most people in this discussion, "knowledge" or "knowing" represents a category of thoughts which are axiomatic: we use them in our reasoning without any concern that they are wrong, perhaps because we trust the source of the information (an external authority or our senses) or perhaps because we can derive it from other knowledge using reasoning methods we believe are sound. Conversely, I think "beliefs" or "believing" represents thoughts which are conjectures: we choose to adopt them but recognize that this was a choice of ours rather than an attempt at deduction from our existing knowledge.

I think you are using the terms in a compatible way, in claiming that adopting (by faith) an existing religious practice, you "know" that you become "aware of what is real and is unreal." I believe that this process of converting belief into knowledge, through faith, is very much at the center of the discussion. Those of us who are skeptics of religion do not claim to be right or wrong---we consider the problem to be unresolvable and question the soundness of "your" methods.

I disclaim the ability to have knowledge that is anything other than beliefs... beliefs which I, out of pragmatic necessity, choose not to question for some duration. I do not entirely trust my own senses or observations, and I certainly cannot trust another party as much as I do myself. I have no faith; I cannot trust! And to be clear, this is not because I somehow suspect myself of being sub-par, but rather because of my overall assessment of the human condition. I think knoweldge is a fool's game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not sure I have the intellectual ability to compete with you. But then I am sure you would be the first to admit that intellectual ability is not a prerequisite for truth.

A doctor may possess all the medical knowledge necessary to practise. But does he “know” how to be a doctor?

An anarchistic artist may paint, burble, scribble all he wishes, but does he see or communicate any truths? Are any of his works remembered?

Yet great artists have produced memorable works often because their insights were confined within restrictions of time, space, form, convention and even religion.

My argument is simply this:

1. Metaphysical speculation is a waste of time

2. Take a “leap in the dark”, preferably in something close to your own traditions – but this is not important – if you look hard enough you will find the right one.

3. Within these parameters work hard at learning to live with yourself and relating to others as equals.

4. Through these actions and often because of them we will slowly become aware of essential truths rarely available in the cold, rationality of “atheistic knowledge”.

5. These truths cannot be measured or weighed, but only demonstrated by the quality of our actions as observed by others.

6. In the final analysis though, only our intentions are of any value.

[moebius]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving...

A favorite link to a favorite song which puts it all in perspective to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2163133