Maybe a degree in Philosophy and MA from another UK University might get you thinking...??? Seriously, you need to read carefully and slowly...
If it were a degree in English then I'd be ashamed of you, but as it's Philosophy then I pity you. Seriously learn to write proper English, case closed, we have been off track enough.
It's very interesting how your view is...VERY religious. Just replace "we are always screwed" with "original sin" and there you have it... Society screws up people, because society as it is now is screwed up. With EDUCATION that can change...but "society" doesn't want that because then, the tool of controlling it...becomes obsolete: fear. The most important tool of education is school. Today's schools prize memory over creativity, thus humans become mere "meat machines" to "work without questioning" for those in control. Buddha said: one cannot meditate on empty stomach, because the mind will never be still, but thinking about food...over and over again. Today's society does the same thing at the more refined level, thus...no real progress of society as a whole, but a meaningless spinning around in the heads of a few..."scientists" that see "progress" where's none. A progressed society means: no borders, no violence, no hunger, no discrimination, no diseases. A progressed society would have by now colonized the entire solar system, maybe the whole galaxy. But no, that's not what Ford, Edison, JP Morgan, Rockefeller wanted...they wanted "a nation of workers, not a nation of thinkers"...so there you have it: the "modern" society. The human should free itself from itself, at first, then worry about "the shackles" of God. Tesla told the "scientists" how to think, but they ignored it: "if you want to know the secrets of the Universe, you have to think in terms of light, frequency and vibration".
Dear Pirate (RRRRRR ), maybe you need to study some Philosophy, in order to understand... Ordinary English is not enough for Philosophy, sorry... Socrate, "screwed" in this sense, if you're not stuck on literal meaning of the word (as if it isn't loaded from the start ), means "not straight" or "limited", i.e. "can not have absolute knowledge, so can not but be somehow 'leaning', 'interested', 'partial' etc." This is in relation to Yen's mantra on "removing the subject (ego tripping ) from the equation", as if that is possible, systemically and in any other way, Eastern or Western approach... Got it now?
And since we're splitting hairs, Her Splitter... Today the elites, using mass education (instilling authority relationship into kids from very early on), media, workplace etc. mould the masses and set norms, mores etc. OK? Ever heard of "modern techniques of governance"?
This is the problem: this "flaw" of limitation(s) is drilled in humans' heads from day one and thus "the flaw" perpetuates to future generations...resulting a flawed society. Let's remove this "flaw" by education and worry later about absolute knowledge. I can assure you that "absolute" knowledge will come on its own when it's supposed to. Right now, humanity as a whole is not at that point. You can't pretend from a 3 months old baby to fly a plane, yet, this is what humanity is trying to do, which is pure madness. "When the disciple is ready, the master will appear". Humanity is not even in the stage of preparing...so how can "absolute knowledge" can appear?
Well, dear gorski, I wish you to achieve the Enlightenment you quote in your signature, then you'll realize what me & Yen talk about.
It's about a basic mindset/attitude. There are people who are very identified with 'an established' ideology. No matter what it is. It took efforts to get it and it seemingly creates an impression of 'safety', probably superiority, too. One feels comfortable within those who are adherents of the same ideology. One is recognized/appreciated there. And there are people (who probably are doing the same), but sooner or later become unsatisfied with it and are questioning things. Such people then become disturbing for those who don’t want to lose it. To interrupt this is to recognize that 'the truth' cannot be lost and that there are many relative truths which have their place where they belong to. Who is playing this game? Obviously 'somebody' who has lost access to this truth. 'Something' is constantly and seemingly not completed yet. The solidarity/appreciation is created by the identification of similar objects. This also creates the impression of safety. The term I am using for it is the ego. It is not the subject, to me 'ego' is a container of objects. Objects with which the subject is identified. It hurts the one when somebody steals his/her car, it doesn't when it is another car. It hurts the one when somebody questions his/her study, it doesn't when it is another one's study. It hurts the one when somebody says: You are fat, it doesn't when another person is meant. This is the mentioned ego tripping. What would be left if a disaster would take any objects away with which one is identified? If 'any-thing' is lost who am I then? The subject, that what one IS, no becoming! (From the aspect of original self-awareness) This is unknown to any ego, though. These are to me the reasons why history reappears all the time wrapped in a different texture. That what socrate mentioned that there is no real progress yet. It is nothing an ego could ever be owner of, it is nothing that can be achieved by 'thinking', though. Awareness is needed. Is that really 'off' what I try to post?
Nope, it's not. The shift in consciousness is real, but it will take time until it will embrace the whole population of the planet. It's a slow process, because general population has a slow mind (not its fault - EDUCATION is the KEY). "The eye can see, but it can't see itself; the finger can touch, but it can't touch itself; the mind thinks, but it can't think itself." - Buddha.
Prove it's real and stop quoting pseudo-intellectual nonsense, the eye can see itself, the finger can touch itself and the mind can behold itself. And God isn't proven by stupid wind analogies etc. As much as you would like to think that you're all powerful and you just have to tap into whatever power you think you have, your mind is still bound by the laws of the physical world. And before you start bringing up the Matrix and calling yourself Neo, take out your eyes and then show me your power !
Arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish in the ocean. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to be stunned. The word 'God' with a capital 'G' is used to mean a singular omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created the universe. If we all agree with this definition then its self contradictory. The 1st. attribute of the God definition. The Paradox of Omnipotence If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely lift the rock in question. If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create such a rock. Either way, then, there is something that God cannot do, and if there is something that he cannot do then he cannot be omnipotent. (1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. (2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. (3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore: (4) God is not omnipotent. (5) If God exists then he is omnipotent. Therefore: (6) God does not exist. 2nd. attribute of God; Paradox of omniscient.. This is that there appear to be some kinds of knowledge that can only be acquired by having certain kinds of experiences. One can only learn what it is like to sin by experiencing sin in first-hand or one can only learn what it is like to feel malice by experiencing malice in first-hand and one can only learn what it is like to be ignorant and powerless by experiencing ignorance and impotence first-hand. Some of these experiences, such as those listed above, are of a kind that cannot be had (experienced) by God. God cannot sin, or feel malice, or lack power. If, though, there are facts that can only be known through experience, and God cannot have the experiences by which those facts can be known, then God cannot know those facts. In that case, the doctrine of divine omniscience will have been disproven. The Problem of Experiential Knowledge (1) There are some items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience. (2) Some of the experiences through which some of the knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by God. (3) If some of the experiences through which some of the knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by God, then there are some types of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God. Therefore: (4) There are some types of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God. (5) If there are some types of knowledge that cannot be acquired by God then it is not the case that God is omniscient. Therefore: (6) God is not omniscient. Freedom and Foreknowledge The argument begins with a consideration of the consequences of God knowing everything. If God knows everything then he knows every act that each of us is going to perform in the future. If God knows every act that each of us is going to perform in the future, though, then it is not possible for any of us not to perform those acts. For if it were possible for any of us not to perform those acts then it would be possible for us to bring it about that - which God knows is false. Knowledge, of course, by definition, is knowledge of the truth; one cannot know that which is false. The idea that -that which God knows could be false is therefore absurd. Because God’s omniscience entails knowledge of all of our future acts, therefore, it also entails that it is impossible for any of us not to perform those acts. The Argument from Foreknowledge (1) A necessary condition for an act’s being free is that it is possible for the agent that is going to perform the act not to perform it. (2) If God knows that an agent is going to perform an act, then it is not possible that the agent is not going to perform it. Therefore: (3) If God knows that an agent is going to perform an act, then it is not the case that that act is free. (4) If an omniscient God exists, then if an agent is going to perform an act then God knows that -that agent is going to perform that act. Therefore: (5) If an omniscient God exists, then if an agent is going to perform an act then it is not the case that that agent is going to perform that act freely. (6) There is an agent that is going to perform an act freely. Therefore: (7) an omniscient God doesn't exist. The problem of evil (or argument from evil) is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and perfectly good God. The Argument from Evil (1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil. (3) The world contains evil. Therefore: (4) God doesn't exist. If it is accepted both that if God existed then the world would be perfect, and that the world is not perfect, then it must also be accepted that God does not exist. The Argument from Imperfection (1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. (2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain imperfections. (3) The world contains imperfections. Therefore: (4) God doesn't exist. Check it for more reading
The most hilarious aspect is that God , the all knowing and merciful and what not, created us in his image and then made us tainted at birth not to mention severely flawed and demands perfection or death by fire pit and what not ! That's the Christian version. Then you have the Buddhist/Hindu version which is to be in the cycle until you achieve perfection and then you come out the cycle. I wonder to do what exactly, sit on a throne and rule the cosmos as an alter ego of God or become non existent since you're the idea in Gods mind and nothing is real ? In any case there can be no free will !
@gorski: At least not the Zionistic / Capitalistic slant applied to Judaism. Just a thought; If we are the sum of our experiences, and We can choose whether to take a negative or positive path that would affect the outcome of our lives, then that would imply freedom of choice. Which would mean that We control our destinies. @sid_16: To attempt to quantify matters of faith is a fools errand. Faith is driven by the heart. Not by science. Not by philosophy. If faith or spiritual beliefs were driven by intellect, they would make no sense, and most would abandon their faith. When analyzed by science, matters of spirituality do not make sense, and can not be proven by axiom or experimentation. And when You challenge a belief system, people will respond from a position of strong emotion. Man is free to choose. God may or may not exist. We don't know. And many of us don't care. We believe whether or not the science is soundly against faith. Everything else in this thread is an academic exercise.