" What is god to me "

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
bobo0100
Senior Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:41 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Australia, NT

Re: What is god to me

Post by bobo0100 »

If you do bad things bad things will happen to you (hell) and if you do good things good things will happen to you (paradise).
Does this not work if we got rid of laws? If it does work without the justice system, than the justice system seems like a waste of tax payers dollars.

It is so that your future is affected by your actions, but this does not mean there is a correlation between good things happening to good people and bad things happening to bad people. The justice system works in as far as the justice system works, but apart from that it comes down to random chance. having "good karma" isn't going to stop a car crash from killing you, or prevent you from getting cancer. Because there is nothing divine about justice.
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
User avatar
Nilesh
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:35 am
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nilesh »

@Fluttershy,
hey, ok i can relate to your point of view of god.
it's basically believe in non-dual nature of the divine.

Theory of Karma, again familiar with that, but it is much more than just do good and good will happen and do bad and bad will happen(this is a part of it, the whole theory is much more complex)

i would like to know from where/how you developed these thoughts ?
User avatar
Nilesh
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:35 am
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nilesh »

bobo0100 wrote:having "good karma" isn't going to stop a car crash from killing you, or prevent you from getting cancer. Because there is nothing divine about justice.
well you have never red theory of karma, have you ?
it's not only about do good and good will happen
1st you/anyone will be getting the consequences/results of your karma, within the realm of Maya(illusion, universe) only, so laws of Maya(laws of the universe, physical and non-physical) will not be altered because of the karma(there are some exception though, but lets not consider this situation at-all).
and impermanence is one of the basic laws(entropy of the universe is always increasing ), so whatever has come into existence will also go out of existence, so everyone is eventually going to die, no karma(however big/good) can alter that.
getting cancer or road accident are natural things that are going to happen with many people, and has nothing to do with one specific karma of theirs, in one sense yes it can be termed as various karma coming in different proportion and contributing towards something happening to you, but remember one thing you were always going to die, karma did not decided you death, at best you can say it decided the method, but then again you inherently assumes that death is something bad, so you think eternal life would have been better, think about eternal life and anything beautiful will just lose it's meaning, everything here has a value because it is temporary.
and you are not getting even the nature of karma itself, it is not justice, it is just reflection/memory.

now you may say but i need prove, to a certain extend it can be given like you study you get good marks, you are police you make lots of friends, you are helpful you will be helped, so most of in general show result
but if you say OK i studied this chapter and no question came from it so show me where my karma is, or i helped this person and he never helped me back so what happened there, so in specific cases the effect of karma can not be determined(because of so much variables are there).
User avatar
bobo0100
Senior Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:41 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Australia, NT

Re: What is god to me

Post by bobo0100 »

Nilesh wrote:Well you have never red theory of karma, have you?
Actually I have not. This comment was clearly addressing karma as the clement had laid it out.
Nilesh wrote:getting cancer or road accident are natural things that are going to happen with many people, and has nothing to do with one specific karma of theirs
I didn't know Karma differentiated between "natural" and "supernatural?" phenomena. Does Karma have a solid definition of what counts as a "natural" event? Or did you mean inevitable?
Nilesh wrote:but remember one thing you were always going to die, karma did not decided you death, at best you can say it decided the method, but then again you inherently assumes that death is something bad, so you think eternal life would have been better, think about eternal life and anything beautiful will just lose it's meaning, everything here has a value because it is temporary.
In this you trivialise death. Do you think that all methods of death are equally innocent of being bad? Surely you can see the difference between someone who has lived a long and fulfilling life, and than passed away peacefully in there sleep, and an child facing nothing but misery due to some server defect at there birth that eventually leads to a very early death in there childhood.
Nilesh wrote:and you are not getting even the nature of karma itself, it is not justice, it is just reflection/memory.
again I was addressing the clement's understanding, for which justice is an accurate analogy.
Nilesh wrote:now you may say but i need prove, to a certain extend it can be given like you study you get good marks, you are police you make lots of friends, you are helpful you will be helped, so most of in general show result
but if you say OK i studied this chapter and no question came from it so show me where my karma is, or i helped this person and he never helped me back so what happened there, so in specific cases the effect of karma can not be determined(because of so much variables are there).
You mean like, you go for a run and you roll your ankle. My point is, there are just as many counter examples as there are examples, and even then as you have admitted these situations could go ether way. Its almost as if the universe was not matching your good deeds to good results. You are trying very hard to make your karma un-falsifiable, although this may allow you to go on believing, it makes your claims hold NO weight argumentatively.

Would you be able to recommend any good resources that will allow me to better understand Karma?
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
User avatar
Nilesh
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:35 am
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nilesh »

bobo0100 wrote: I didn't know Karma differentiated between "natural" and "supernatural?" phenomena. Does Karma have a solid definition of what counts as a "natural" event? Or did you mean inevitable?
yes the implied meaning was inevitable.
bobo0100 wrote: In this you trivialise death. Do you think that all methods of death are equally innocent of being bad? Surely you can see the difference between someone who has lived a long and fulfilling life, and than passed away peacefully in there sleep, and an child facing nothing but misery due to some server defect at there birth that eventually leads to a very early death in there childhood.
you think i am trivializing death, i think you are giving too much importance
let me attempt this one, the examples you have choose are very extreme(which i suppose is to amplify your point, which is good), but you are not seeing the whole theory,
karma did not stopped with your this life only

(now you may say but you don't believe in reincarnation itself,so how can I give you an explanation based on it,so my answer will be look I DON"T KNOW EVERYTHING, i am myself trying to understand these things, so i can tell you whatever i know, which is very limited, and in no sense i claim this is the only truth, for me this is a possibility and i am exploring it, so if you are cool with it then read below otherwise there is no point further,

like if you want concrete proves for reincarnation,right now i don't have any, but i also don't see any reason to believe that consciousness just ends with death, and this also be discussed further, why i don't think so, but that is another topic )

now that the example of that kid only, now the child has a severe defect and it is suffering very much, would it not be good for him actually to die and have a new life rather than suffer in that life only(ok these all are logical argument, don't take it literally ),

again the old man lived a fulfilling life, too much of imagination, no one has lived a life which is devoid of suffering, everyone has their own causes of it, but everybody has it, now you/anyone might think by looking some other(say rich)person that his suffering is much less, but the point is even he will look at someone and think the same, there is no one living a perfect life,

suffering was/is/will be, you/anyone can not escape it

now suppose that child was in Syria right now, so would it be any less bad(his death), if after he is born in any other country ?


west think very -ve about death which it is not, lets see suppose a tribe lives in a jungle alone and there are man eating tigers in the jungle, so in night there is very strong chance that the tiger might kill someone and eat them, now at the time of sun set it's natural that the tribe will be fearful and assign negative emotions like death to evening/night, but was the evening/night really had any negativity associated with them, i mean evening is just like morning , it's a transition period, and it has no special meaning (with respect to morning,afternoon,evening,night), it is the tribe that is giving it any meaning

karma is also like this, it just is, it is neither for you or against you, like sun it is basically indifferent to individuals

and no one wants to die, it's not that the old man would mind less if he die, we all wants to live in whatever miserable situation we may be,everyone(exceptions are)just wants to continue living(for satisfying which we have made notions of heaven)

for a moment believe in reincarnation(many people do, Hindus,Buddhist,Jains etc), so how much time you would spend mourning for those whom you have lost when you came in this life, you must had a wife, a mother, a dad, friends, siblings, job many other things, but now does any of that matters? now you might say but i don't believe in reincarnation, ok, but other groups do, do you think these other groups mourn for their past lives and past relations, anything of this world will never touch the real you(we call it Atman, similar to soul), are these people bad ? i am not saying here because many people believe so it must be true but the point is that this suffering that you/we give so much of importance is very subjective in it's nature


like remember the 1st time you had a true love(if you had), now at that time doesn't it seem that the other person is the whole world for you, and if the person breaks your heart, it's almost like world is meaningless then,at that point nothing can really compare to the pain you/anyone goes through, but then again when you'll be 40 and think about the same incident you will have very different feeling about it(so can you in hindsight say ok it was not that big of a deal, which at that point of time looked like everything )

so the whole point is, if you look events in their entirety then this notion that theory of karma does not hold up because it dons not explain everything that child's death, is not so

anyway i did stretch the argument a bit too much :oops:

bobo0100 wrote:You mean like, you go for a run and you roll your ankle. My point is, there are just as many counter examples as there are examples, and even then as you have admitted these situations could go ether way. Its almost as if the universe was not matching your good deeds to good results. You are trying very hard to make your karma un-falsifiable, although this may allow you to go on believing, it makes your claims hold NO weight argumentatively.
the theory does not address individual action reactions, and does not give any information how/where will the karma come back, so if you want this to be addressed, then it's just not there.

any physical thing that happens in this universe has a reason behind it,i mean there is cause and effect
like sun,start,planets,
solar system(gravitational force)
earthquake(tectonic movement of plates)
wind(pressure difference)
we(evolution)
in the same way theory of karma tries to explain what it deals with, now if it does then have it, if it doesn't then discard it,
but we should judge it on it's terms, and should not apply our own bias and try to discard it without even understanding it
that is my point of view


anyway one more point, from what i understand, science does not pay any attention to observer,it only deals with what is being observed
but consciousness is what observes anything, and we know nothing about it, not mentioning here to suggest yo to believe in what i believe in
but like if you/anyone are for physical sciences then they should also try to understand it(consciousness) by their own methods
because knowing/understanding the true nature of it is important from whichever method/source you understand it
bobo0100 wrote:Would you be able to recommend any good resources that will allow me to better understand Karma?
not really, sorry.
i study about these things in my spare time, and right now im into concept of god(like what it is)
but ill share with you if i come across anything

and Srimad Bhagavad Gita, is the most popular book for Karma, but it's a very big also,you can actually see which chapters deals with karma and read those if you want, it is a very good book
User avatar
Nitrex
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:41 am

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nitrex »

I think there are many ways for someone to see a God, You can even consider nature itself to be a God, you can also say that Nature is a God but not an intelligent designer.

I used to believe in an intelligent designer years ago, after a lot of scientific research that changed my mind, and I am more towards the view that our creation was an accident, but it is a beautiful accident nonetheless and I appreciate every moment of it and being that lucky sperm that made it through, the least I can do now that I am alive is better humanity for the future generation of mankind in this vast opened universe on that little blue speck of dust we call Earth.
User avatar
bobo0100
Senior Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:41 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Australia, NT

Re: What is god to me

Post by bobo0100 »

Nilesh wrote:yes the implied meaning was inevitable.
Very poorly phrased question on my part anyway. :oops:
Nilesh wrote:you think i am trivializing death, i think you are giving too much importance
I think you missed my point, I will try to explain it better. The terms "good" and "bad" are not as useful as there counterparts "better" and "worse" as the latter are comparative. You seem to be only taking the death aspects from the two situations I provided, however the second situation is comparatively better than the first, in terms of suffering. In my comment I admit that I was presuming that a new life came into existence with a neutral value of Karma, which would than mean that we would not expect to have such circumstances for the birth of child from my previous example.
Nilesh wrote:now that the example of that kid only, now the child has a severe defect and it is suffering very much, would it not be good for him actually to die and have a new life rather than suffer in that life only(ok these all are logical argument, don't take it literally),
The kid would likely be give a great deal of relief when overcome with death, but would it not have been better if they where to live a long and fulfilling life?
Nilesh wrote:again the old man lived a fulfilling life, too much of imagination, no one has lived a life which is devoid of suffering, everyone has their own causes of it, but everybody has it, now you/anyone might think by looking some other(say rich)person that his suffering is much less, but the point is even he will look at someone and think the same, there is no one living a perfect life,

suffering was/is/will be, you/anyone can not escape it
I never meant to imply a "perfect" life, and I didn't use such language. I said fulfilling which can be taken to mean good by the standards of the person experiencing the life. My point is that this person has a better lot than the child.
Nilesh wrote:now suppose that child was in Syria right now, so would it be any less bad(his death), if after he is born in any other country ?
please clarify your point.
Nilesh wrote:karma did not stopped with your this life only
This is what I failed to take into account. I will take some time addressing the version of reincarnation you have put fourth.
Nilesh wrote:like if you want concrete proves for reincarnation,right now i don't have any, but i also don't see any reason to believe that consciousness just ends with death, and this also be discussed further, why i don't think so, but that is another topic
Off topic ~ Your language here reveals your biased against such a conclusion. It may not have been your intent, but your use of just here seems to be suggesting that such a reality would hold less value than one with reincarnation.

I however do see immense reason to believe that consciousness ends with death. Have you looked into how manipulating the brain effects ones consciousness? The point is that there is a causal relationship between states of the brain, and states of consciousness, and when the brain stops so does the consciousness. I would recommend some of Sam Harries, often brief, words on this.
Nilesh wrote:west think very -ve about death which it is not, lets see suppose a tribe lives in a jungle alone and there are man eating tigers in the jungle, so in night there is very strong chance that the tiger might kill someone and eat them, now at the time of sun set it's natural that the tribe will be fearful and assign negative emotions like death to evening/night, but was the evening/night really had any negativity associated with them, i mean evening is just like morning , it's a transition period, and it has no special meaning (with respect to morning,afternoon,evening,night), it is the tribe that is giving it any meaning
Is night meant to be an analogy for death? Because I think its far from a perfect analogy.
Nilesh wrote:for a moment believe in reincarnation(many people do, Hindus,Buddhist,Jains etc), so how much time you would spend mourning for those whom you have lost when you came in this life, you must had a wife, a mother, a dad, friends, siblings, job many other things, but now does any of that matters? now you might say but i don't believe in reincarnation, ok, but other groups do, do you think these other groups mourn for their past lives and past relations, anything of this world will never touch the real you(we call it Atman, similar to soul), are these people bad ? i am not saying here because many people believe so it must be true but the point is that this suffering that you/we give so much of importance is very subjective in it's nature
I found this interesting, your posing a version of reincarnation wherein the person is for all intensive purposes not the same. If the consciousness lives on, than why is it for all intensive purposes completely different on the other end?

You seem to be going out of your way to make your claims untestable, tell me this, what is the difference between a world with and without Karma and reincarnation. They seem to be EXACTLY the same. Is that not a problem for you at all?
Nilesh wrote:
bobo0100 wrote:You mean like, you go for a run and you roll your ankle. My point is, there are just as many counter examples as there are examples, and even then as you have admitted these situations could go ether way. Its almost as if the universe was not matching your good deeds to good results. You are trying very hard to make your karma un-falsifiable, although this may allow you to go on believing, it makes your claims hold NO weight argumentatively.
the theory does not address individual action reactions, and does not give any information how/where will the karma come back, so if you want this to be addressed, then it's just not there.
This is what I mean by you are making your claim untestable. Whenever I propose something you propose some sort of block to make it irrelevant, so tell me this. How can we tell if Karma is true, what distinguishing characteristic does it have from a world without Karma? If your claim is untestable, than there is no reason to continue this conversation.
Nilesh wrote:any physical thing that happens in this universe has a reason behind it,i mean there is cause and effect...
in the same way theory of karma tries to explain what it deals with, now if it does then have it, if it doesn't then discard it,
but we should judge it on it's terms, and should not apply our own bias and try to discard it without even understanding it
that is my point of view
but your claim of Karma holds no explanatory power, it explains nothing.
Nilesh wrote:anyway one more point, from what i understand, science does not pay any attention to observer,it only deals with what is being observed
Not so. As I stated before, there is the study of consciousness in Science.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if anything doesn't make sense, I started replying at 2AM and returned to it some time later.
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
User avatar
Nilesh
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:35 am
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nilesh »

bobo0100 wrote:I think you missed my point, I will try to explain it better. The terms "good" and "bad" are not as useful as there counterparts "better" and "worse" as the latter are comparative. You seem to be only taking the death aspects from the two situations I provided, however the second situation is comparatively better than the first, in terms of suffering. In my comment I admit that I was presuming that a new life came into existence with a neutral value of Karma, which would than mean that we would not expect to have such circumstances for the birth of child from my previous example.
again my answer is, yes the old man's life was better comparatively from that kid's life, but only if you consider only this life, but both the kid and the old man will have infinite lives, and in some, one(kid/old man) will be better than other and vice-versa(based on their previous and present karma), so if you only think only this life is there then this theory is not applicable at all, reincarnation is one of the basic foundation of this theory.
bobo0100 wrote:The kid would likely be give a great deal of relief when overcome with death, but would it not have been better if they where to live a long and fulfilling life?
any life no matter how good or bad would never want to end, you can see it everywhere, no one wants to die no matter how much fulfilling their life have been,living a fulfilling life means what if your next life(or some life in future) might be as miserableness as that kid's life was i guess i ma not able to convey how the nature of life is,so lets use a metaphor
suppose the kid and the old man both liked cars(sport cars)
like they were racers or something, now the kid dies just one day before his 1st race and the old man becomes a very famous driver and drives many cars and say after 30/40 years the old man is on death bed but a new car has come into the market, now the old man would like to drive that car, wouldn't he, and he dies wanting to drive this latest car, so the point he no matter how many cars you drive in your life there always be one more car in the world that you would like to drive, and so there no distinction in their lives, all they did was to crave for the next car, how many car who drove was immaterial because the craving never went away
bobo0100 wrote:I never meant to imply a "perfect" life, and I didn't use such language. I said fulfilling which can be taken to mean good by the standards of the person experiencing the life. My point is that this person has a better lot than the child.
ok, my mistake, i should have been careful in reading. :oops:
bobo0100 wrote:I never meant to imply a "perfect" life, and I didn't use such language. I said fulfilling which can be taken to mean good by the standards of the person experiencing the life. My point is that this person has a better lot than the child.
suppose in the first case kid lives and either fights or is persecuted by ISIS, that is one life
and in second the kid dies born in Australia and lives a normal Australian life
so if you were that kid, which life you would have choose for yourself
but this is just a hypothetical question
bobo0100 wrote:Off topic ~ Your language here reveals your biased against such a conclusion. It may not have been your intent, but your use of just here seems to be suggesting that such a reality would hold less value than one with reincarnation.

I however do see immense reason to believe that consciousness ends with death. Have you looked into how manipulating the brain effects ones consciousness? The point is that there is a causal relationship between states of the brain, and states of consciousness, and when the brain stops so does the consciousness. I would recommend some of Sam Harries, often brief, words on this.


i used 'just' to signify that believing that consciousness ends with death, while we don't even know where consciousness comes from or how it arises is also using bias(i.e, with death everything ends), my only point is if something is not even defined properly then to say it must end with death is also neglecting other options that might happen, my point was not to take any one side and shut the door for the other(i am not talking about god here, like if someone says, before assuming god is there after death first prove he/she/it is/was here before death, i am only concern with consciousness here, and i hope you will agree that consciousness is real, at-least before death )

immense reasons to believe it ends with death ? can you share some.


brain(mind) and consciousness(Atman) are different(according to the tradition),
but this is on which i think there are much more i need to study, before making an opinion

causal relationship, please explain further

Sam Harris, ok , i also finds him very interesting and worth seriously listening, so can you recommend me something specific regarding consciousness(written by him) that i should study
bobo0100 wrote:Is night meant to be an analogy for death? Because I think its far from a perfect analogy.
why? i mean if almost every night someone from your tribe dies, then in due time why can't death will also be linked with night,in some sense ?
bobo0100 wrote:I found this interesting, your posing a version of reincarnation wherein the person is for all intensive purposes not the same. If the consciousness lives on, than why is it for all intensive purposes completely different on the other end?
did not understood,
what do you mean by intensive ?
is what you are asking here is, if the consciousness is permanent then why this world is impermanent?
bobo0100 wrote: You seem to be going out of your way to make your claims untestable, tell me this, what is the difference between a world with and without Karma and reincarnation. They seem to be EXACTLY the same. Is that not a problem for you at all?
i think the question more appropriate will be"what is the difference between a world with and without believe in Karma and reincarnation?" ,
and the answer would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
bobo0100 wrote:You seem to be going out of your way to make your claims untestable
if you want to test the whole(all the theories,i.e, Karma,Maya,Brahaman or anything)the method suggested is meditation, because if anyone is serious then yes these doubts are bound to be there ? so the process that has been suggested is through meditation you realize Brahman(the pure consciousness)
now if you say no, i want i physical prove,experiment or something that i can perform in laboratory then i don't think it is possible because it will be like a biologist searching for evidence of evolution in astro-physics, if anyone wants to verify something he/she must look for the evidence in that subject's domain also
one more thing is this is all about realization and not about just learning, just learning will not do anything here.
and your karma(if it exist) will not give you any more or less based on weather you knew about it or not, it'll only depend on your work(using this word in a very loose sense)

bobo0100 wrote:This is what I mean by you are making your claim untestable. Whenever I propose something you propose some sort of block to make it irrelevant, so tell me this. How can we tell if Karma is true, what distinguishing characteristic does it have from a world without Karma? If your claim is untestable, than there is no reason to continue this conversation.
i never added anything new, as cause you did not knew the theory, so you are saying this, but this all was there from the very beginning, like you may ask now who does the karma or on whom karma associated with, is it Atman(the real you), which in reincarnation goes from one body to another body, and the answer will be no, no karma ever touches the Atman,now you'll say i have now added a new block into it, but it was already there.

again if you want a prove via doing an experiment in a laboratory then i don't think you can get any, and if you don't wanna continue the conversation then i am not gonna troll you
anyway i don't even know all about it, so maybe you are discussing with the wrong person

bobo0100 wrote:
but your claim of Karma holds no explanatory power, it explains nothing.
ok :|


bobo0100 wrote:Not so. As I stated before, there is the study of consciousness in Science.
ok, let's discuss about that.
can you give me some basic idea about it.
User avatar
bobo0100
Senior Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:41 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Australia, NT

Re: What is god to me

Post by bobo0100 »

Nilesh wrote:any life no matter how good or bad would never want to end, you can see it everywhere, no one wants to die no matter how much fulfilling their life have been,living a fulfilling life means what if your next life(or some life in future) might be as miserableness as that kid's life was i guess i ma not able to convey how the nature of life is,so lets use a metaphor
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your analogy's, but in many cases they are difficult to follow. I have conceded your point about the inevitability of death, I am just arguing that not all deaths are equally good/bad. In this you have continued to miss the point.

Your stating that no one wants to die is dead wrong (pardon the pun). There are people who are suicidal, what ever your opinions on the topic are, they are people who think life would be best not lived, and as such disprove your statement.
Nilesh wrote:suppose in the first case kid lives and either fights or is persecuted by ISIS, that is one life
and in second the kid dies born in Australia and lives a normal Australian life
so if you were that kid, which life you would have choose for yourself
but this is just a hypothetical question
I concede the point, most of the people on this forum think in terms of situational ethics, where in the "goodness" and "badness" of a thing is assessed by the specifics of the situation. I don't however see how it lends credence to your claim of Karma.
Nilesh wrote:i used 'just' to signify that believing that consciousness ends with death, while we don't even know where consciousness comes from or how it arises is also using bias(i.e, with death everything ends), my only point is if something is not even defined properly then to say it must end with death is also neglecting other options that might happen, my point was not to take any one side and shut the door for the other(i am not talking about god here, like if someone says, before assuming god is there after death first prove he/she/it is/was here before death, i am only concern with consciousness here, and i hope you will agree that consciousness is real, at-least before death)
I don't see how any normative definition of the term 'just' given the context you used it in could imply that, but again its off topic so...
Nilesh wrote:immense reasons to believe it ends with death? can you share some.
As I said in the last post, there is a causal relationship between the state of the brain and the state of the consciousness. For example, if someone was to be informed about the recent death of someone close to them, they would likely react by experiencing (consciousness) grief, but they would only experience this when the brain has began releasing chemicals that make one experience grief. As such we can say that there is a state of the brain that correlates to a state of the consciousness, but this is only correlation. There would be causation if we where to change the state of the brain and observe the predicted change in the state of the consciousness. This sort of causation has been proven in the labs, I believe they used drugs to effect the chemicals in the beings brain, but I'm not a neuroscientist. In the words of Sam Harris "The mind is a function of the brain" and when the brain stops functioning, the mind stops.
Nilesh wrote:Sam Harris, ok , i also finds him very interesting and worth seriously listening, so can you recommend me something specific regarding consciousness(written by him) that i should study
I would have to look through his archives, I don't know if any of his books cover the topic, but I think I remembering him covering it in a Q&A video on his Youtube channel, shouldn't be too hard to find.
Nilesh wrote:
bobo0100 wrote:I found this interesting, your posing a version of reincarnation wherein the person is for all intensive purposes not the same. If the consciousness lives on, than why is it for all intensive purposes completely different on the other end?
did not understood,
what do you mean by intensive ?
is what you are asking here is, if the consciousness is permanent then why this world is impermanent?
All things considered the consciousness of a new born is not the same consciousness as the consciousness of the person who dies in order to reincarnate as the new born. Everything that would normatively be noted as what makes a persons consciousness there own, mainly there ideology and there past experiences, are not present in the consciousness of the new born.
Nilesh wrote:i think the question more appropriate will be"what is the difference between a world with and without believe in Karma and reincarnation?" ,
and the answer would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
I don't think that would be a better question at all. Would it be appropriate to treat Karma like we would a law or property of our universe? Like we treat the law of gravity, we can say that if gravity was not true in our universe than clusters like stars and planets would not be able to form (I'm going to stop here before I show just how much I'm not a physicist xD). So, in what way is a universe in which the property of Karma holds true, different from a universe wherein it does not hold true?

You seem to be romanticising the idea of Karma as a property of the universe witch is untouchable by science, as if the property would no longer be valuable if it where touchable by science. In this whole conversation you have proposed no way in which the claim's can be falsified, spite my requesting such a thing on multiple occasions, I have suggested a few but you play half asked apologetics to get around them. Why do you wish to believe something that cannot be logically proven?
Nilesh wrote:again if you want a prove via doing an experiment in a laboratory then i don't think you can get any, and if you don't wanna continue the conversation then i am not gonna troll you
anyway i don't even know all about it, so maybe you are discussing with the wrong person
It does not have to be in a laboratory, I simply want you to meet your burden of proof, you have not done this.

I don't think you are trolling, And I am egger to continue this conversation, I just don't see how we can continue this conversation if you are unwilling to meet a burden of proof by making your claim testable/falsifiable.

you know it in as far as you understand it, it is your understanding of karma that this conversation is about.
Nilesh wrote:
bobo0100 wrote:Not so. As I stated before, there is the study of consciousness in Science.
ok, let's discuss about that.
can you give me some basic idea about it.
Refer to the conversation about the relationship between the brain and the consciousness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't mean to be insulting, but if you would mind paying more attention to your grammar. Your text's would be far easier to read if you where to capitalises the beginnings, and punctuate the ending with a full stop. I understand that English is not your first language, and I really am enjoying this conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eddited because I suck at English. :oops:
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
User avatar
Nilesh
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:35 am
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: What is god to me

Post by Nilesh »

Agree. English is not my first language and I am not god in it's(English's ) grammar. I do apologize for the inconvenience it causes you, and will be using capital latter and full stop from now on. :arrow:


bobo0100 wrote: I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your analogy's, but in many cases they are difficult to follow. I have conceded your point about the inevitability of death, I am just arguing that not all deaths are equally good/bad. In this you have continued to miss the point.

Your stating that no one wants to die is dead wrong (pardon the pun). There are people who are suicidal, what ever your opinions on the topic are, they are people who think life would be best not lived, and as such disprove your statement.
My point here is, in life suffering is constant, and fulfilling moments are temporary.
To understand this you can also use 'The First Nobel Truth in Buddhism(and it's full explanation)', that is what i was trying to convey here all the time.


Suicidal people. Actually I had taken them into consideration in my 1st comment
nilesh wrote:and no one wants to die, it's not that the old man would mind less if he die, we all wants to live in whatever miserable situation we may be,everyone(exceptions are)just wants to continue living(for satisfying which we have made notions of heaven)
Note exceptions are.
Suicidal and other tendencies are actually result of outer stimulus and not something that arises from within you. Like you have a situation(or something) that you didn't liked and in response is to become suicidal.
Or take the example of soldiers going in a battle, not everyone will come back. Some will die, but they go anyway. It is not because they don't want to live(or care less about it). It's just the outer stimulus(say nationalism) is strong enough in them to temporary overcome this desire for life. But this is always temporary in it's nature, your desire for living will always come back. And that is only what is permanent in all this.
when someone becomes suicidal, it's not like you become suicidal for the first time and you will go for it. Many time you will become suicidal but will not take and physical action. In certain times you do take physical actions, but if you are saved then, like after you wake up in hospital mostly you will not attempt another suicide immediately. Because that stimulus is no longer that strong now. It might again become strong in future. But this is more like an anomaly/temporary, and not standard/permanent.

bobo0100 wrote:I don't see how any normative definition of the term 'just' given the context you used it in could imply that, but again its off topic so...
I didn't wanted to state, but my efficiency in English is :oops:
bobo0100 wrote: As I said in the last post, there is a causal relationship between the state of the brain and the state of the consciousness. For example, if someone was to be informed about the recent death of someone close to them, they would likely react by experiencing (consciousness) grief, but they would only experience this when the brain has began releasing chemicals that make one experience grief. As such we can say that there is a state of the brain that correlates to a state of the consciousness, but this is only correlation. There would be causation if we where to change the state of the brain and observe the predicted change in the state of the consciousness. This sort of causation has been proven in the labs, I believe they used drugs to effect the chemicals in the beings brain, but I'm not a neuroscientist. In the words of Sam Harris "The mind is a function of the brain" and when the brain stops functioning, the mind stops.
Here much has needs to be discussed.
Now whatever I'll be saying here is already in 'Srimad Bhagavad Gita'. So you can check that. It's not like I am creating a new block here now.

Mind is indeed a function of brain, and so when brain stops functioning the mind stops. This is 100% true. But consciousness and mind are not same actually.
Give me a day or two to recheck what I want to say(and come up with good examples to co-relate). I will respond to it in one/two days.
Because I think before discussing it any further, we need to clear what mind and consciousness(can I use Atman for it) really are.


bobo0100 wrote:All things considered the consciousness of a new born is not the same consciousness as the consciousness of the person who dies in order to reincarnate as the new born. Everything that would normatively be noted as what makes a persons consciousness there own, mainly there ideology and there past experiences, are not present in the consciousness of the new born.
Again we are confusing consciousness with Mind, consciousness does not change, Mind will change.
Look Karma/reincarnation/Maya(illusion/Universe) never affects the consciousness, they only affect the mind.
Ideology and past experience or personality or anything are functioning on the level of mind and not at the level of consciousness(Atman).
Then the natural question would be, how to know this Atman even is ?
again give me one/two days, I'll just recheck and reply.

I think I have stated it already, but let me make it clear, in reincarnation mind does not goes from one life to another life. It dies with the body.So if anyone will try to fit characteristics of mind into reincarnation then it will not work or make any sense.
bobo0100 wrote:I don't think that would be a better question at all. Would it be appropriate to treat Karma like we would a law or property of our universe? Like we treat the law of gravity, we can say that if gravity was not true in our universe than clusters like stars and planets would not be able to form (I'm going to stop here before I show just how much I'm not a physicist xD). So, in what way is a universe in which the property of Karma holds true, different from a universe wherein it does not hold true?

You seem to be romanticising the idea of Karma as a property of the universe witch is untouchable by science, as if the property would no longer be valuable if it where touchable by science. In this whole conversation you have proposed no way in which the claim's can be falsified, spite my requesting such a thing on multiple occasions, I have suggested a few but you play half asked apologetics to get around them. Why do you wish to believe something that cannot be logically proven?
OK, let me 1st address how it can be falsified.
The theory of Karma does not stand in isolation, theory of Maya(illusion) and Theory of Atman(consciousness) must be true in order of theory of karma to be true.
Now the test of all these is through meditation. According to the tradition the Atman is never touched by either Maya or Karma, and in order to understand the true nature of Maya and Karma, you have to realize the Atman, not understand it but realize it.
The point being if you do it correctly you will be able to remove the duality(subject object split) that is there because of Maya.
So the method told is to do mediation, and learn the true nature of Atman.
If this does not count as logic/prove to you, then I am not aware of any other method(and thus there is no prove of any of it)
And even if you are able to understood the Atman, you wont be able to tell others about what you have understood. This is not something that can be communicated.
So if meditation does not count as a prove or if someone says he/she must be able to tell others whatever he/she has understood/realized, then in that situation this theory is nothing more than romanticizing an idea.
bobo0100 wrote:It does not have to be in a laboratory, I simply want you to meet your burden of proof, you have not done this.
Same answer, the for falsification or confirmation the method is through meditation.
If this does not count as a proof to anyone, then there is indeed no proof for him/her.
bobo0100 wrote:Refer to the conversation about the relationship between the brain and the consciousness.
Brain effects or has a relationship with the Mind only.
Consciousness is completely independent from both of them.
Post Reply