Creation Question

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Creation Question

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 07:40 pm
I don't know if I should post this here or in the religion section. I decided to post it here because it deals with ontology (I think) and perverted metaphysics. It is also a question of logic.

Here is the question: If God created a man to be 30 years old one day ago, how old is the man?

I have an ulterior motive for asking this question, I will post it if I get some replies (or you may try to guess what it is)
 
topherfox
 
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 09:44 pm
@de Silentio,
Just depends on the way you ask it.
Quote:
man to be 30 years old one day ago, how old is the man?

If he created him to be 30, then he's thirty. Now if you said he was created to appear 30, then he is 0 seconds old.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 10:11 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
I don't know if I should post this here or in the religion section. I decided to post it here because it deals with ontology (I think) and perverted metaphysics. It is also a question of logic.

Here is the question: If God created a man to be 30 years old one day ago, how old is the man?

I have an ulterior motive for asking this question, I will post it if I get some replies (or you may try to guess what it is)

I hate math riddles. Here is an easy one. How do you keep from losing your hair? Put a name tag inside your toupee.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 06:50 am
@de Silentio,
One day old.
If he lived that long.
It matters not a whit that he was created thirty years old (or 30,000), he was created, whatever, one day ago; after one day, he will be one day old.
Rather simple, really, no?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 01:14 pm
@nameless,
That depends, di Silentio, what are we assuming about God? If we assume God to be omnipotent, then if God made him to be thirty years old a day ago, the man is thirty years old. If God does not have absolute omnipotence, then the man is a day old, as nameless argued.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 07:41 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
what are we assuming about God


I would assume he is omnipotent, since he is creating this man. Why would his being omnipotent matter?

Also, as an aside, isn't absolute omnipotence a redundent phrase? Smile
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 09:20 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;7044 wrote:
I would assume he is omnipotent, since he is creating this man.

Why? That seems non-sequitur to me. I 'create' all sorts of things, that doesn't render me 'omnipotent'.
When you sleep, do you not 'create' an entire world? It's all in your mind, no? Are you 'omni-anything' thereby?
 
Justin
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:18 am
@de Silentio,
hmm... he'd be 30 years old in the physical flesh. If God created the man to be 30 years old, he essentially created the physical man. However, the thought of the man was created long before and since the man is not body but rather spirit... there is no beginning and no end to eternal soul.

So, it's all in how one looks at it. If your identity is formed by the physical world then you'd be a 30 year old body created yesterday with the spirit of God, which is eternal life.

Somewhat of a trick question and there's sure to be many answers... something to ponder over....
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 06:49 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
That seems non-sequitur to me


Agreed. I usually throw in that God creates this man ex nihilo, but I forgot this time.

Which sparks another question, does God need to be omnipotent to create something ex nihilo.

Quote:
the thought of the man was created long before and since the man


I recently put this in another post: Kierkegaard says in one of his books that God does not think, he creates. I've pondered this quite a bit, and assuming that God is omniscient, he would not have to think, in the sense that we use the word.

Quote:
there is no beginning and no end to eternal soul.


If this was so, we would have to be equal with our creator, since he is also purely eternal, never having a beginning or end. Being creatures, we must have been created at some time, thus we must have a beginning.

Quote:
If your identity is formed by the physical world then you'd be a 30 year old body created yesterday with the spirit of God, which is eternal life.


Interesting. I never thought of personal identity that way.

Also a good answer to my question: The man has a 30 year old body created yesterday.

------

Has anyone figured out where I'm going with this?
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 21 Dec, 2007 09:07 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;7092 wrote:
does God need to be omnipotent to create something ex nihilo.

Define some'thing'. When you sleep at night and have a 'dream', are 'you' creating this dream world from nothing? Is it actually 'something', or does it simply appear so? When engaged, non-lucidly, in your dream, is it not as 'real' as your 'waking dream'? There is no 'material substance created, much less from 'nothing'.

Quote:
God does not think, he creates.

A 'physical brain' is required for (the illusion of) 'thought'.

It would make answering your comments easier if you quoted the names of the posters to whom you are replying. Especially if you are responding to multiple posters in one post.
Peace
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 08:23 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Define some'thing'. When you sleep at night and have a 'dream', are 'you' creating this dream world from nothing? Is it actually 'something', or does it simply appear so? When engaged, non-lucidly, in your dream, is it not as 'real' as your 'waking dream'? There is no 'material substance created, much less from 'nothing'.


A 'physical brain' is required for (the illusion of) 'thought'.

It would make answering your comments easier if you quoted the names of the posters to whom you are replying. Especially if you are responding to multiple posters in one post.
Peace

One of the great problems God presents to thinking people is that if God is, nothing else is. If God created all we know, then there need be nothing but God, and everything not God tends to diminish the possibility of God as any sort of reality. Now, I think it is possible that if God is, then he had the power to make this reality out of his own stuff, and his own being. Yet, if God has the power, and the power to make all we know, then certainly God needs to make nothing to give the illusion of knowing. We could be a dream and all of reality could be an illusion in us as dream. There needs to be no underlying reality to any of it or to us, but only to God. On the other hand it is possible that God could have transformed God into energy and matter, and gave life to reality at the expense of existence on any level. Then we, like all of reality would be of God, and God would be the only reality still. To consider the infinite is to build temples out of conjecture.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 07:20 pm
@de Silentio,
[quote] nameless - Define some'thing'. [/quote]
When speaking strictly of something being created ex nihilo, I wonder if it matters at all what that 'something' is. If it is truly 'out of nothing', it must become 'something' when it is created, because the way I see it, either it (the 'it' being anything that is created) is either something or nothing.

When you speak of the images in my dreams, they are something, but they come from something that is already created, therefore they cannot be created ex nihilo.

[quote] A 'physical brain' is required for (the illusion of) 'thought'. [/quote]
What do you mean by: 'the illusion of thought'?

I don't know if you were agreeing with me or rendering my statement irrelevant.

Why is a 'physical brain' required for thought?
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 10:59 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;7154 wrote:
When speaking strictly of something being created ex nihilo, I wonder if it matters at all what that 'something' is.

Not from this perspective. I'm cool with everything in existence being a 'thing' of some sort; something that has 'context/definition', which = (what is commonly thunk of as) existence.

Quote:
If it is truly 'out of nothing', it must become 'something' when it is created, because the way I see it, either it (the 'it' being anything that is created) is either something or nothing.

Perhaps we are stumbling over semantics. I think that the following reply will clarify things a bit. I don't hold any halucination of more 'value' (epistemologically or metaphysically) than any other. Mind (quantum wave field) is not a 'thing', it is a 'potential' with no context/definition (positive). From that nonexistent Mind comes timeless momentary memory, that which most call their lives, universes, worlds.. all (existence) as 'memory', for one timeless (Planck) moment!

Quote:
When you speak of the images in my dreams, they are something,

SomeTHING... What? Thought? I don't think that most would consider 'thoughts' to be the same 'things' as apples.
I, however, will accept a 'thought' as a 'thing', as it exists like everything else. You cannot conceive of something that does not 'exist'! All it needs to exist is context/definition (memory), like everything else.

Quote:
but they come from something that is already created, therefore they cannot be created ex nihilo.

Point taken. The analogy is ricketty, but does hold some water when applied to common concepts of 'things', and something comming from 'nothing' (Mind).
When we are 'created' as a momentary memory, if there is a dream in our created apparent head, at that moment, both we and our dream are 'created' from 'nothing'. No, in 'actuality', we create nothing, yet our dreams (like ourselves) are nihilo-ex-nihilo. There must be 'motion' first of all.. No, there appears to be only One Creator (Consciousness); One Creation (MemoryPerspective)

Quote:
What do you mean by: 'the illusion of thought'?

Analogy; Like the illusion of 'motion' in a movie ('move'-ie), so is the linearity of thought in our (illusion of) life. Nothing (there are no 'Real' 'things', just 'mnemonic illusions') moves, no 'verbs' beyond our mnemonic 'mind'. Bits of memory/info/moments, when viewed from a particular perspective, give rise to the 'illusion' of linear motion/time/space..
'Thought' is a 'linear motion'.
Do you realize that from another perspective, our apparent lives can just as well be running in 'reverse'? Actually, to the Observer of that perspective, life actually runs 'backwards (though, of course, he wouldn't say it was 'backwards'.... just like we don't! *__-)!
So, all 'verbs' are illusion within subjective memory alone. Rather like a halucination. At least there is no irrefutable evidence to the contrary, at the moment.

Quote:
I don't know if you were agreeing with me or rendering my statement irrelevant.

Does it matter?

Quote:
Why is a 'physical brain' required for thought?

I recant my poorly worded statement! I cannot support such balderdash!
I 'think' that 'thought' (not linearly as we experience it) is quite probable without a brain. (Uh oh, I cant support that either if we define 'thought' as 'linear', which it is. 'Thought' would have to be completely redefined (Quantum Mind?), but once 'defined', again is in existence as a dualistic memory/perspective. Perhaps that is why Consciousness cannot be defined, it doesnt exist!) Perhaps it has something to do with Mind (not memory) which I equate with the quantum wave field (undifferentiated potential), that is 'actuated' by the 'touch' of Consciousness giving rise to the actuation of all potentialities (existence) with/by perspective/Observation (by Consciousness)'. This 'Creation of Existence'' is the momentary mnemonic perspectives that appear to be (mnemonically) 'us living our lives'. Quantum theory indicates that a 'probability wave', 'touched by Consciousness, collapses into one 'reality' and all other potentials dissolve/disappear with the 'actuation of 'one' possibility. Someday, quantum will find that all potentiality waves (in Mind) collapse into 'memory'. We are One perspective of One moment...
That better? Hahahahah....
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 11:44 pm
@Fido,
Fido;7146 wrote:
One of the great problems God presents to thinking people is that if God is, nothing else is. If God created all we know, then there need be nothing but God, and everything not God tends to diminish the possibility of God as any sort of reality.

Not a problem. There can be no 'other' than 'Consciousness/God/Tao/whatever..', otherwise it would be relative/contextual/defined/existent.. Created, not Creator. All we are is a momentary 'memory' within Mind/Consciousness. The only 'Reality' is 'Consciousness/God/...', what quantum theory (Copenhagen Interpretation) has indicated to be the 'Ground of all Being'.
My tentatively accepted definition, at the moment, is, again, Vedic;
"Reality must strictly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
This 'non'-definition leaves no room for 'other'/context/definition. Which is why it is considered 'idolatry' in religious circles to fill in the blank following "God is_____" with anything. That demotes 'It' into existence by definition.

Quote:
Now, I think it is possible that if God is, then he had the power to make this reality out of his own stuff, and his own being.

Memory from Mind. Dream. If you consider that to be 'stuff', so be it.

Quote:
Yet, if God has the power, and the power to make all we know, then certainly God needs to make nothing to give the illusion of knowing.

God cannot 'know' himself but by us. God cannot know anything without us (perspective/memory of stuff to 'know').

Quote:
We could be a dream and all of reality could be an illusion in us as dream.

BINGO!!
Its all in your head.... even your head! *__-

Quote:
There needs to be no underlying reality to any of it or to us, but only to God.

'God/Consciousness' is the 'only Reality'.

Quote:
On the other hand it is possible that God could have transformed God into energy and matter, and gave life to reality at the expense of existence on any level.

Nope, not possible.

Quote:
To consider the infinite is to build temples out of conjecture.

Upon a foundation of misty idle speculation and 'non'-concepts.
Yep. How poetic!
'Timeless' would be a more 'accurate' (and meaningful) term than 'infinite', though.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 12:55 pm
@de Silentio,
[quote=nameless]- SomeTHING... What? Thought? I don't think that most would consider 'thoughts' to be the same 'things' as apples. SomeTHING... What? Thought? I don't think that most would consider 'thoughts' to be the same 'things' as apples. [/quote]

Is this statement valid: A thought comes from the different parts of my brain being configured and working in such a way as to produce thought? I would even venture to extend this to the mind. If this statement is correct, then would thought not be the same 'thing' as an apple?

However, I do have very little experience with the philosophy of mind. But I can see no other way to reconcile what we know of the brain and what we 'know' of our minds.

[quote] so is the linearity of thought in our (illusion of) life [/quote]
How is life an illusion? I have different memories that are organized by my internal sense of time. I am experiencing myself typing right now, I experienced my wife saying goodbye to me 10 minutes ago, I experienced by child going down for a nap 30 minutes ago, however, if I am to say that these events being organized in time is simply an illusion, how can we have experience at all? Because, if I don't experience the world in the same manner that my wife or child does (sequentially through time) how can we ever relate to each other? Part of the difficulty I am having with Kant right now is trying to understand how space and time are only subjective 'forms' of reality. They must, out of necessity of a functioning universe, be objective properties of the universe. If they were merely forms of my sensible intuition, how could one object interact with another?

It seems to me that time is both an objective property of the universe and a subjective form of my experience.

However, I have gotten that far into Kant, so I don't know.

-----

If I am correct in my above exposition of what thought is, then thought is truly linear, because my brain gets reconfigured sequentially, and thus my thoughts are sequential (linear). Kant says that if we did not possess the knowledge of time, we could not organize our experience of objects. I think the same goes for thoughts, it is necessary that they flow sequentially, otherwise we could not organize them as such.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 23 Dec, 2007 09:34 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;7183 wrote:
Is this statement valid: A thought comes from the different parts of my brain being configured and working in such a way as to produce thought?

Not from this perspective. Your 'thought' arises each moment with the rest of the universe. Your brain is 'created' (mnemonically) in toto, along with everything else in the universe of the momentary memory. New moment, new universe/memory. Just like still frames from a movie. Put all frames in a pile on a table, there is every moment, arisen synchronously, at the same moment, all sitting together. Now, take some frames and line them up in a particular order, viewed from a particular perspective, there is a 'motion' picture (life). Viewed from other perspectives, the 'movie' (life) will appear to be running backwards. From a trillion other perspectives, there will be a trillion different universes and lives, some that you could never comprehend as we as one simple 'perspective'. We are simply experiencing one particular 'pattern' of moments. There are almost infinite different 'patterns'/perspectives.
So, what is seen as thought 'self' arising from a particular beain is spurious. 'Thought' arises as the 'brain' arises, simultaneously. We do not 'produce' anything. Yes, in our world of 'make believe', it certainly seems so, that is the illusion, and a wondrous illusion it is.

Quote:
I would even venture to extend this to the mind. If this statement is correct, then would thought not be the same 'thing' as an apple?

Your thought/concept/memory of an apple is the only apple in existence. Memory=existence. 'Memory/'thought' = apple = life.

Quote:
However, I do have very little experience with the philosophy of mind. But I can see no other way to reconcile what we know of the brain and what we 'know' of our minds.

Our minds?? *__-

Quote:
How is life an illusion?

See above.
Practice Zen.
Actually, any 'spiritual' practice, any 'mystical' practice, Quantum theory...
Google "Life is an illusion" and read the first hundred sites to come up. Understanding is something that either comes from 'within' (arises with the universe (memory) of the moment), I cannot do more than throw words, pointers, and words are a poor form of communication at 'this' level. You can, however, 'experience' it for yourself.

Quote:
I have different memories that are organized by my internal sense of time.

You ARE memory at any one moment. You ARE memory, arising with memory of memory (illusion of linearity and motion), memory of 'self', memory of a 'thought', a 'dream', a 'hamburger'... All arising as/in the 'moment'. Some moments, you arise with a 'sense of time' and a feeling of 'organizedness', a 'memory' of 'organized memories.

Quote:
I am experiencing myself typing right now, I experienced my wife saying goodbye to me 10 minutes ago, I experienced by child going down for a nap 30 minutes ago, however, if I am to say that these events being organized in time is simply an illusion, how can we have experience at all?

A particular arising (momentary) memory appears as 'experience'. Arising with a particular new memory is what is often called an 'epiphany' or 'revelation' or 'genius', or 'brain fart', depending on the 'appearance' of the memory.
It is more like you ARE the experience (memory) and it is (the One) 'Consciousness' that is the 'Experiencer'.

Quote:
Because, if I don't experience the world in the same manner that my wife or child does (sequentially through time) how can we ever relate to each other?

My friend, the only place that your wife and child reside as 'who they are' is in Mind, as memory. There is no 'wife and child' 'out there'. There is no 'out there' out there. Basically, your entire life is a mnemonic dream. You are created with the memory of family. Different every moment. All is memory, nothing 'needs' to have 'objective' existence. There is no such thing anyway.. doesn't need to be. Memory certainly seems to provide the entire enchilada, and so much more.
Perhaps it is becomming obvious by now that I have a slightly different 'definition' of 'memory'.


Quote:
Part of the difficulty I am having with Kant right now is trying to understand how space and time are only subjective 'forms' of reality.

Subjective 'forms' of 'memory'. The illusion is that they/it is more than simple memory, and relates to some mystical objective 'out there'.
Bye the bye, it is considered 'spacetime' as there is no quantitative difference. The only difference is perspective.
Perspective; See this dot '.'? Looks like a dot, right? Wrong! It is an end view of a line!
See this line '______'? Looks like a line, right? Wrong! It is a side view of a plane, a circle, a triangle...
See this 'cube'? *__-
Perspective.
And that use of the term 'reality' indicates that the 'author' would (sloppily) use it interchangeably with 'existence'.

Quote:
They must, out of necessity of a functioning universe, be objective properties of the universe.

One more time, the only place that 'the universe' exists is in/as 'Mind/memory. The only place it (seems to) 'function' is likewise in/as Mind/Memory.

Quote:
If they were merely forms of my sensible intuition, how could one object interact with another?

All objects exist as objects in Mind/Memory.

Quote:
It seems to me that time is both an objective property of the universe and a subjective form of my experience.

I know that it 'seems' like that. The appearance of 'time' is an integral component of the memory of the universe of the moment. 'Time' must (appear to) 'be' so that 'space' might (appear to) 'be' so that 'we' might (appear to) 'be'. All memory. Nothing 'objective. Falling for the illusion/fantasy of 'objectivity' has been an anchor around the neck of science until now.

Quote:
If I am correct in my above exposition of what thought is, then thought is truly linear,

Certainly... from a 'particular perspective, according to certain memory.

Quote:
because my brain gets reconfigured sequentially,

Thats the appearance, but your (memory of a) 'brain' arises, synchronously, in each and every moment of 'you'. A whole new 'memorybrain' every (nonlinear) moment!

Quote:
and thus my thoughts are sequential (linear).

Certainly seem like that, anyway.

Quote:
Kant says that if we did not possess the knowledge of time, we could not organize our experience of objects.

It certainly seems like 'Kant' has his 'perspective', like everyone else...

Quote:
I think the same goes for thoughts, it is necessary that they flow sequentially, otherwise we could not organize them as such.

There are other perspectives where the illusion of thought runs in all different kinds of direction, right up to all synchronous with no linearity at all. All perspectives 'make sense' to the perceiver, just as yours and mine and everyone else's. Hence egoic argument...
Peace
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2007 05:54 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Not a problem. There can be no 'other' than 'Consciousness/God/Tao/whatever..', otherwise it would be relative/contextual/defined/existent.. Created, not Creator. All we are is a momentary 'memory' within Mind/Consciousness. The only 'Reality' is 'Consciousness/God/...', what quantum theory (Copenhagen Interpretation) has indicated to be the 'Ground of all Being'.
My tentatively accepted definition, at the moment, is, again, Vedic;
"Reality must strictly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
This 'non'-definition leaves no room for 'other'/context/definition. Which is why it is considered 'idolatry' in religious circles to fill in the blank following "God is_____" with anything. That demotes 'It' into existence by definition.


Memory from Mind. Dream. If you consider that to be 'stuff', so be it.


God cannot 'know' himself but by us. God cannot know anything without us (perspective/memory of stuff to 'know').



It has always intrigued me to see people make rules for God. God cannot this, or God cannot that. Certainly God can or cannot according to our logical rules but is it logical to presume anything of God to be logical if God is above and beyond logic. We put a toy train together to run in circles on a track. With infinite power why would one need to follow any guide. One might have the train run through infinite or nearly infinite cycles and discontinue the track at any moment, just because, if it is God's system, God can manage it as God see fit. Now, it was on this point that the Pope beat Gallaleo, that while we live in an ordered universe it is illogical to presume the God follows orders.
Quote:

BINGO!!
Its all in your head.... even your head! *__-


'God/Consciousness' is the 'only Reality'.


Nope, not possible.


Upon a foundation of misty idle speculation and 'non'-concepts.
Yep. How poetic!
'Timeless' would be a more 'accurate' (and meaningful) term than 'infinite', though.

Infinite works for me. Thanks. Thou art God.
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2007 06:04 pm
@Fido,
Fido;7198 wrote:
It has always intrigued me to see people make rules for God. God cannot this, or God cannot that.

Again, I merely speak as I must, from this perspective.. for what its worth...
If you 'partake' of the Judeo/Xtian biblical concept of 'God' with all those (idolatrous) 'qualities'; 'omni' this, and omni that.. 'God is this, God is that..', fine.
I prefer to use the term 'Consciousness' as it drags much less baggage than 'God'.
Be that as it may, though, according to all 'enlightened visions' (in relative agreement) throughout the millennia, 'Consciousness/God' is 'non-contextual', 'permanent' and 'unchanging'.. "..must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
According to this 'definition', and the 'scriptures' which can only say what 'God' is not (created, for instance, nor is part of creation) (like the Sikh writings) rather then attribute human characteristics (make 'It' in our image) such as the Judeo/Xtian mythology does, yes, it gives a very different 'definition' of a 'God/Consciousness'. No, a whale cannot fly through the sky, and 'Consciousness' does not becoma a 'fish'. Unless you imagine all those self-referential 'omnis', making your concept of 'God' (idolatry to have a concept of God) merely a reflection of 'self' with super powers built from your mundane 'powers'. Vanity...

Quote:
Infinite works for me. Thanks. Thou art God.

Thats fine. I don't use the term as there is absolutely no evidence to support any 'reality' to the word. We cannot even form a proper concept around it. It is no more than a 'belief' in a meme, from this perspective. Science would support this. There is 'science' that will also support other perspectives as well. Though, little by little, the 'meme' is dying from lack of oxygen.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2007 11:22 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Again, I merely speak as I must, from this perspective.. for what its worth...
If you 'partake' of the Judeo/Xtian biblical concept of 'God' with all those (idolatrous) 'qualities'; 'omni' this, and omni that.. 'God is this, God is that..', fine.
I prefer to use the term 'Consciousness' as it drags much less baggage than 'God'.
Be that as it may, though, according to all 'enlightened visions' (in relative agreement) throughout the millennia, 'Consciousness/God' is 'non-contextual', 'permanent' and 'unchanging'.. "..must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
According to this 'definition', and the 'scriptures' which can only say what 'God' is not (created, for instance, nor is part of creation) (like the Sikh writings) rather then attribute human characteristics (make 'It' in our image) such as the Judeo/Xtian mythology does, yes, it gives a very different 'definition' of a 'God/Consciousness'. No, a whale cannot fly through the sky, and 'Consciousness' does not becoma a 'fish'. Unless you imagine all those self-referential 'omnis', making your concept of 'God' (idolatry to have a concept of God) merely a reflection of 'self' with super powers built from your mundane 'powers'. Vanity...


Thats fine. I don't use the term as there is absolutely no evidence to support any 'reality' to the word. We cannot even form a proper concept around it. It is no more than a 'belief' in a meme, from this perspective. Science would support this. There is 'science' that will also support other perspectives as well. Though, little by little, the 'meme' is dying from lack of oxygen.

Giving a name to all that people cannot comprehend gives them the sense that they do comprehend it. Our reverence for concepts in part follows from the magic of the name. The mana of a name gave one a certain power over the one who possessed it, and this name taboo shows up in the Bible. We want power over God, and if we knew the first thing about God it would be the name of God, and this we do not know. So we say, the God. The God will be with us as long as people pray or curse.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 01:22 am
@Fido,
Fido;7207 wrote:
Giving a name to all that people cannot comprehend gives them the sense that they do comprehend it. Our reverence for concepts in part follows from the magic of the name. The mana of a name gave one a certain power over the one who possessed it, and this name taboo shows up in the Bible. We want power over God, and if we knew the first thing about God it would be the name of God, and this we do not know. So we say, the God. The God will be with us as long as people pray or curse.

Everyone knows that god's name is Harold; "Our father who art in heaven, Harold be thy name!
It is mere silliness to think seriously that 'Consciousness/God/Tao' has a personal name like we. Just more anthropomorphisation...
The 'name' magic is the magic of 'description/context, which is 'existence'. With 'definition (name)' existence is. They arise together. Hence it's 'magical' application in effecting one's 'will' in existence. A simple name alone can do nothing but with an adept, and small magics at that. Hence, hair, fingernail clippings, ears.. are more 'context', more power to effect 'your will' upon that 'person'. All hollow games of the prideful ego.. Fantasy games can be fun, but that is what they are.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Creation Question
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 04:06:08