Originally posted by lucifershammerWhen you experience sadness, you are experiencing certain biochemical, neurological processes going on in your body in response to some stimuli. “Sadness” is the name we use to label that experience—there is not a substance called sadness to which the substantive refers.
The difficulty in defining a "self" does not mean it is any less clear what it is or make it impossible to speak of it. I can't define "sorrow" clearly to a person who never has any emotions; that doesn't mean I have trouble identifying it when I'm sad!
A neuro-biologist (like Antonio Damasio, say) might be able to give a quite complete definition of the processes that underlie that experience, but it is difficult to articulate the [feeling[/i] experience without recourse to other, similar, word-labels—or by demonstrating behavior that another would recognize as “being sad.” We are able to use such word-labels, because we recognize the common, at least similar, experience—but, as you say, someone who experiences no emotion would find both our word-labels and a scientific definition of the processes useless in terms of understanding the feeling of what’s going on.
With that said, do you think the “self” is any different a sort of affair—except for being a larger complex of such processes (including awareness of singular perspective, memory, etc.)? Or do you intend your analogy to be a fairly exact one? If the analogy holds, then “self” is a similar word-label for which definition ought to be possible—but with similar ability/difficulty in articulating the feeling of being “self.”
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedSo you agree that Christinity is not the only one that talk about trinity.
indeed! modalism.
modalism is one man being manifested in 3 different states.
just like Brahma, the creator,
Vishnu, the preserver,
and Shiva (Siva), the destroyer.
all different manifests of Brahman, the hindu's "true god".
Therefore, derivation of modalist views.
Actully I belive that the true christinity has nothing to do with trinity and trinity is added to it later on after Juses is GON.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes they do.
Sorry, I don't understand the word 'cop-out'.
The very essence of God is that he is not comprehensible. He is not logic because he has the power to stand outside any logic.
Religion does not have logic because faith is stronger.
A medieval priest (?) named Averoës actually invented the view of ‘double truth’, something that can be true in the eve ...[text shortened]... if its totally contradicts the first one.
So the laws of logic doesn’t apply in religion.
take a look at Aquinas, Anselm, and others.
Ontological argument.
Cosmological argument.
Teleological argument.
Intelligent design.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBesides some meandering into comparisons of Christian art and pagan art, the only analogy either site comes up with is the Trimurti of Hinduism (although the former seems to think every Father/Mother/Son or Father/Daughter/Son combination in pagan mythology represents a Trinity).
This site is funny:
http://www.thunderministries.com/history/notrinity.html
Even better:
http://mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm
For more on the Trimurti, check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdA neuro-biologist would only be able to give a complete definition of the biochemical processes as it applies to humans (and it may vary from human to human and incident to incident).
When you experience sadness, you are experiencing certain biochemical, neurological processes going on in your body in response to some stimuli. “Sadness” is the name we use to label that experience—there is not a substance called sadness to which the substantive refers.
A neuro-biologist (like Antonio Damasio, say) might be able to give a quite complete ...[text shortened]... possible—but with similar ability/difficulty in articulating the feeling of being “self.”
Do I think the self is a different sort of affair to an emotion? Yes, I do. Can it be described as a complex of physical processes? In a materialist conception, it can -- but, as with emotions, such a definition will be limited to the kind of being whose self-ness is being defined. However, that even if it can be completely described thus, it doesn't become any less real. A thing and its components can be thought of as existing at different "levels" of reality; each level is no less "real" than the one comprising it.
Originally posted by ahosyneyWhat do i have to do to help you to choose that Jesus is God?
I belive hat GOD exist
But I don't belive he is Juses
I belive there is only one for GOD. I know a way to GOD and I belive it is the true one..
Are you sure from your way??
I will submit some verses later.
Submit some verses from the Koran that talk about Jesus and I will look them over.
1 edit
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedI'm waiting for your verses.
What do i have to do to help you to choose that Jesus is God?
I will submit some verses later.
Submit some verses from the Koran that talk about Jesus and I will look them over.
For Quran as you know it is written in Arabic. Many translation exist. I give you here one example of what Quran say about Juses with threee different translations:
004.171
YUSUFALI: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
SHAKIR: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
IMPORTANT Note: Quran is only one it is in Arabic and all Muslims Read it in Arabic. Translations are just for non arabic speakers to understand Quran.Translations are not considered Quran themselves.
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyIf you mean Christianity is not the only one that talks about three divine persons, then yes, you're right. But it is the only one with the "three persons in one godhead" formula.
So you agree that Christinity is not the only one that talk about trinity.
Actully I belive that the true christinity has nothing to do with trinity and trinity is added to it later on after Juses is GON.
Originally posted by lucifershammerA neuro-biologist would only be able to give a complete definition of the biochemical processes as it applies to humans (and it may vary from human to human and incident to incident).
A neuro-biologist would only be able to give a complete definition of the biochemical processes as it applies to humans (and it may vary from human to human and incident to incident).
Do I think the self is a different sort of affair to an emotion? Yes, I do. Can it be described as a complex of physical processes? In a materialist conception ...[text shortened]... at different "levels" of reality; each level is no less "real" than the one comprising it.
Whether or not that’s accurate (I’d have to consult somebody like scottishinnz), I thought we were talking about humans.
Actually, I think the variation lies within a fairly narrow range (though there are always outliers, like your example of someone who physiologically cannot experience certain feelings). If the variation is too great, then we would not have sufficient commonality to speak about it at all.
However, that even if it can be completely described thus, it doesn't become any less real. A thing and its components can be thought of as existing at different "levels" of reality; each level is no less "real" than the one comprising it.
Your assumption is, then, that—unlike being sad—there is a substance-self to which the noun refers? If so, my only point would be that such seems to be an assumption (which does not invalidate it as such).
Originally posted by vistesdWhy is it an assumption to say that there is a substance-self to which the noun refers? Why does it not simply follow from the fact that, say, I am asking you this question that there is an I-self asking?
[b]A neuro-biologist would only be able to give a complete definition of the biochemical processes as it applies to humans (and it may vary from human to human and incident to incident).
Whether or not that’s accurate (I’d have to consult somebody like scottishinnz), I thought we were talking about humans.
Actually, I think the variation lies withi ...[text shortened]... point would be that such seems to be an assumption (which does not invalidate it as such).[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy do you think that “I-self” represents something more than a transient consciousness-complex that has a nuero-physiological ground (responsible for memory, feeling, etc.), and has a singular perspective that is self-referential? That is, why do you think the “I-self” is a substance? A Buddhist (at least a Zen Buddhist) would flat disagree, while having the same experiences. The "I-self" experience does not seem to offer any evidence that could decide the question.
Why is it an assumption to say that there is a substance-self to which the noun refers? Why does it not simply follow from the fact that, say, I am asking you this question that there is an I-self asking?
Perhaps “assumption” is too strong a word (though perhaps not; I intended in the same way that any philosophical system rests on certain assumptions, or sometimes axiomx), but it certainly seems to lie in how you choose to interpret such experiences. I have no reason to conclude that there is a “substance-self” to which the substantive refers.
NOTE: A Hindu would distinguish between jivatman and atman, but ayam atma brahmasmi...
Originally posted by vistesdThanks vistesd. Now LH will never answer my post in response to that one. 😞
When you experience sadness, you are experiencing certain biochemical, neurological processes going on in your body in response to some stimuli. “Sadness” is the name we use to label that experience—there is not a substance called sadness to which the substantive refers.
A neuro-biologist (like Antonio Damasio, say) might be able to give a quite complete ...[text shortened]... possible—but with similar ability/difficulty in articulating the feeling of being “self.”
That said, both the feeling of sadness and the bioneural processes of sadness are known through evidence and therefore, no absolute truth can be claimed upon neither of them.
My point here is that even the subjective feeling is an experience and therefore our subjective knowledge of it is also empirical.
Originally posted by PalynkaSorry, my friend! 😳 I hereby take a vow of forum silence until LH responds to your question (believe, me an act of self-interest on my part—for which I can now use you as an excuse...).
Thanks vistesd. Now LH will never answer my post in response to that one. 😞
That said, both the feeling of sadness and the bioneural processes of sadness are known through evidence and therefore, no absolute truth can be claimed upon neither of them.
My point here is that even the subjective feeling is an experience and therefore our subjective knowledge of it is also empirical.
With that said, I agree with the rest of your post.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSince you're complaining, I'll answer yours first. 😉
Thanks vistesd. Now LH will never answer my post in response to that one. 😞
That said, both the feeling of sadness and the bioneural processes of sadness are known through evidence and therefore, no absolute truth can be claimed upon neither of them.
My point here is that even the subjective feeling is an experience and therefore our subjective knowledge of it is also empirical.
Even if emotions and thoughts are only known through experience, their reality is still properly a priori (a distinction that Kant made) because they cannot be denied without at once contradicting oneself; and therefore can be known with absolute certainty; i.e. an absolute truth can be claimed.
EDIT: I didn't read vistesd's latest post when I wrote the above. Honest.
Originally posted by vistesdPlease, don't. That was just a small friendly jab at LH. 🙂
Sorry, my friend! 😳 I hereby take a vow of forum silence until LH responds to your question (believe, me an act of self-interest on my part—for which I can now use you as an excuse...).
With that said, I agree with the rest of your post.
Besides, I think my contribution to the conversation has reached its limit for the moment. Carry on!