On 10/21/2014 10:42 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a
belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.
>
/There are actually three questions running through this thread://
//
/
1. /Is Barry mentally ill for believing in Buddhas, karma or
reincarnation?/
2. /Are there any proofs for the existence of Buddhas?/
3. /Why does Barry believe in reincarnation and karma?/
>
the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of
mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to
what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the
efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : )
>
/The real question is why is Barry posting his beliefs in Buddhism and
at the same time posting atheist messages directed at Hindus or
Christians? This seems like a case of cognitive dissonance. Everyone on
this list knows Barry has claimed a belief in Buddhas, karma and
reincarnation. It's not complicated./
Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence
of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm
suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable?
>
/We had a very long discussion about this with Robin Carlsen about St.
Thomas Aquinas defense of the existence of God using the proofs of
Aristotle and Parmenides as to the existence of a prime mover. In this
argument everything is based on change and the law of causality.
For anything to move or change there must be a cause. There can be no
change without movement or change and there must be cause for everything
that happens. The purpose of Aristotle's argument, is that there is at
least one eternal unmoved mover that must exist, in order to support
everyday change.
However, the idea of first and only cause, something that does not
itself need a cause, is nonsensical and cannot be applied according to
Immanuel Kant who "attempted to put an end to what he considered an era
of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting
the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume."/
/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant/
>
We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no
proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may
believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof.
>
/Probably none of us has been up in space to see the curvature of the
earth, yet we all believe the earth is spherical in shape. Very often we
depend on verbal testimony for our justification for a belief - at other
times we use inference, both are valid means of knowledge./
>
[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher]
>
/There are several arm-chair philosophers on this list//, Barry being
not one of them: masked_zebra was apparently steeped in Christian and
Islamic theology having been a monk for several years; emptybill was
apparently a monk in the Eastern Christian church for several years;
Curtis has a degree in philosophy from MUM;//and I took Philosophy 101
under Richard Braugham, Ph.D. at a local community college.//I also took
Logic 101 and Ethics 101. Go figure./
>
I am going to restate the 2nd question as: Is a believe in the
existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material
justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include
anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with
the physical/material.
>
/The ultimate reality is pure consciousness - there is much
justification for believing this. According to Ramana, the validity is
not metaphysical but it is experiential. Consciousness is the prior
condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance
within it. Consciousness is prior to everything else that exists.
Consciousness is all there is - the experience of "I-am" is the only
real certainty./
>
An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would
believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all
observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the
physical/material world itself.
>
/Physical science cannot explain consciousness because there is nothing
in the physical world to prove the existence of consciousness. Without
consciousness there would be no material/physical world. There must be
consciousness or else there would be no perception. Consciousness is
prior to everything else. According to Parmenides, "nothing comes from
nothing"./
>
For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to
having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the
need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and
the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
/The thread posted by Barry is really a series of straw man statements,
pasted by Barry to deny his cognitive dissonance. There are probably no
Christian, Jewish, or Islamic believers on this list. Correct me if I am
wrong about this. Thanks./
