Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Sep 2, 2012.
So, God created itself? :bugeye:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There is ''truth'' which can only be ''personal'', and there is ''absolute truth'' which just is, regardless of personal truth or notions.
I don't recall him or anyone else claiming that personal truth was infallible.
It doesn't matter you would be telling the truth.
The fact of the matter is that there are perhaps thousands of lifeforms in that room, but we wouldn't know it as truth, because we wouldn't be aware of them.
God is defined as eternal.
It may do you good to see it from that definition.
And since science seeks to reduce any subjectivity regarding "truth", and since the matter of truth was raised in the context of science, it is disingenuous to try to qualify discussions of truth in this matter to that of "personal truth".
It wasn't clear, as his comments in the context of science (which was what was being discussed) left the door open for such implications. I doubted that was his intent, which was why I conditioned the comment with "unless...".
I find it odd that you would call something that doesn't depend solely on one's personal opinion "ego-centric".
But part of our experience is comparing our own experirnces with others. It is trivially true that "all I know is my own perception" but my perception is partly made up of what other people tell me about their perceptions. I think I mentioned earlier that our level of confidence in our perceptions increases if others have similar perceptions.
Your concept of "infinity" is too simplistic. The surface of a sphere is finite but it has no boundary.
Everything we percieve is subjective, and science is no different.
The notion that the only truth is that which science unfolds makes for a retarded, and brainwashed society.
Science, religion, philosophy, and art, work for us, not the other way round.
Science is different in the same way that a superhighway is different from a footpath. By pooling our collective resources and/or perceptions, we can accomplish things as a group that we could never accomplish as individuals. Finding useful "truths" is one of those things.
"Two heads are better than one" is an old saying bcause it's been valid for a long time.
Ultimately, we still have to make the final decision ourselves, even if that decision is to copy what our fave peeps think and do.
And if you make a decision that doesn't mesh with the communal perceived reality, it's called "mental illness". The idea that you're right and everyody else is wrong is seldom productive.
hmmmm... a extension though could be expressed:
"there are what appear to be conditional infinities and then there is "infinity""
Eg. of a conditionl infinitey, would be as you mention, a sphere..
The surface of a sphere is finite, unconditionally. Lack of boundaries does not imply infinity.
example: a circle drawn on a page is both infinite and finite depending on what conditions you wish to work with or display.
A blank page is also showing an infinite display that is conditional due to absense of anything resembling the finite.
To find the centre in an "unconditional" infinite universe means there are no "conditions" ei. circles or spheres to use to aid you in acheiving an answer. There is no circumference to find the middle to.
It is an unconditional infinity...
so the answer to the question posed:
If the universe were infinite where would one find it's center of gravity [or GOD for Balerion]?
would you presume a conditional infinity or an unconditional infinity?
a circle coud be claimed to be "infinitely finite" as well. [ in other words infinite resolution to being a circle [aka Pi]
I don't know what a "conditional infinity" is supposed to be.
An infinite line can be finite on one end and an infinite plane can be finite on one or more sides. I don't think it makes much sense to think of them as having a "center".
@Jan & @ Sarkus,
When I was saying that all truths must be personal regardless of validity, in support Jans point, I may have confused the issue terribly.
I lean towards Buddhist teaching regarding the event of cognition and how it is the conditioning, due to attachments, addictions, habit, etc, that distorts the interpretation of the truth after it has been acknowledged as personal experience.
The truth has been expereinced but the ego then turns it into a "projection" of it's own creation. Thus the truth is lost to the experiencer due to ego centricity. "Slaying of the ego" therefore can only lead to greater interpretations and more truthful rendering of the truth.
However due to infinite reduction as proposed by fellow member Wesmorris years ago in his splendid writing of "The Tao-ist Trap" the ego can not be completely slayed as it takes ego to slay it with.
eg. The desire to end all desire is a statement of paradox yes?
So when taking this truth seeking and ego slaying [slaying] to the ultimate paradoxical state one can safely say due to that paradoxical state that Truth can never be interpreted correcty by the ego because of the ego. But this doesnt mean that the truth does not exist for the experiencer, it just means it is unavailable due to the nature of the ego.
There fore one coud say quite confidenty that the use of logic [application of ego] can never discover a truth....only a belief in the truth.
ok... lets see..
would you consider an infinitely large sphere to have a circumference?
I suppose a sphere with an infinite radious would have an infnite circumference.
I would consider the use of the qualifier description "sphere" as being a condition placed on infinitey...
If I had said instead:
does a volume of infinite space have borders?
would the answer be:
yes infinite borders...
It's just that inofficial gods tend to quickly become gods of gaps. But I give you this: God of the gaps is the only god that makes some sense, if only by default.
better some sense than none hey?
In the end it all comes down to your own relationship with YOUR universe/God/ Lepricorne/ fairy/ santa claus/ photon/ Higgs/ Pc or Mac.... semantics really...
just make the bloody thing fit what we observe and away you go....[chuckle]
funny the idea of God being secular....hmmmmm... non religious and probably even athiest.... ha
Separate names with a comma.