Why (Self) Identity Is Bad

[HitchSlap]

A wise man understands that in order to search for truth he must first have faith that truth can be found.

No faith needed for the pursuit of truth. Things are as you find them, personal baggage is irrelevant.

 

[bhsmte]

Since I am fallible, I can rationally objectively consider a God who is infallible.

If I were infallible, I would be God, but I know I am not God.

The fact that I know I'm not God because I'm fallible means I must admit an infallible God is possible. Just because I admit an infallible God is possible does not mean I have to accept this God as true. All it means is that I'm being intellectually honest, regardless of my preconceived notions about particular religions that claim an infallible God exists.

But your admitting there is an infallible God is indeed, fallible.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

 

[Davian]

The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).

The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not. Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.

But belief is not a conscious choice, is it?

A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical.

Holding one responsible for things beyond ones control, under penalty of an eternal "Hell", could also be considered tyrannical.

Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)

How do you know this? Have you some mind-reading hat that allows you to peer into a critter's (humans included) brain, to see if it is self-aware?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

 

[Gottservant]

I must admit controlling myself to the lowest position on the internetted, is quite difficult.

Truthfully though, I basically had one thought about the self getting in the way of identity:

Someone with a perfect idea, is still tempted with intempt; in the context of control of the tongue which no man has had, from the beginning - actually, there is almost no way to change anything but the conviction that - - does not get ignored more, on the basis of watching your words - - - or does not get hated more less or more or less, as would be of the unprincipled one.

In context with what you said, the struggles we experience around this, are essentially: that no choice on its own, makes sense within the context of prophecy on which we fundamentally rely, identity or otherwise, unless, as we would wisely: we rely on an idea we had, that was no different from what we were told would work, regardless of the difference between temptation (or tempest) that intempt (which is either, refusal to commit, or determination to stick at what does not qualify even through ____) keeps us from being ____ ____ at the very least "still enough, that the difference is not lost (in a way that helped even fewer than those who had believed needed such).

"Once" again, thank you that you brought that topic up (rule or not, the law in Australia at this point seems to have been slam something).

 

[PsychoSarah]

The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).

The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not. Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.

A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical. Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)

I disagree fully with your first premise. Belief in something existing is not contingent upon it being favorable. Also, the hubris of considering humans, or anything else on this planet, perfect is staggering. Additionally, free will is an overrated quality that you can't even decidedly prove humans have, and if we do, god has violated it in the bible before.

Our current reality suggests anything but a perfect and good god, to such an extent that a being having all three qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence is considered to be contradictory to the observable world around us. And even if having the capacity for good and evil was necessary for us to develop, surely one could place a cap on it so that we could only do so bad, and violate the wills of thousands in doing so.

Also, that god you speak of didn't give us much choice in the afterlife. In fact, since belief isn't contingent upon conscious will, most people who believe or don't do so as a result of their interactions with the world, not conscious decision making. In one such as myself, you can want to believe in god, and be incapable of forcing yourself to. I have been trying for years, and have never succeeded (with a brief period of stopping that lasted less than 4 months). Is it perfect that my own beliefs will not bend to my will?

 

[Chriliman]

But your admitting there is an infallible God is indeed, fallible.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

My fallibility has no effect on an infallible God existing or not.

You are also fallible in your reluctance to believe my claim that an infallible God exists.

 

[Chriliman]

Can you give

I disagree fully with your first premise. Belief in something existing is not contingent upon it being favorable. Also, the hubris of considering humans, or anything else on this planet, perfect is staggering. Additionally, free will is an overrated quality that you can't even decidedly prove humans have, and if we do, god has violated it in the bible before.

Our current reality suggests anything but a perfect and good god, to such an extent that a being having all three qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence is considered to be contradictory to the observable world around us. And even if having the capacity for good and evil was necessary for us to develop, surely one could place a cap on it so that we could only do so bad, and violate the wills of thousands in doing so.

Also, that god you speak of didn't give us much choice in the afterlife. In fact, since belief isn't contingent upon conscious will, most people who believe or don't do so as a result of their interactions with the world, not conscious decision making. In one such as myself, you can want to believe in god, and be incapable of forcing yourself to. I have been trying for years, and have never succeeded (with a brief period of stopping that lasted less than 4 months). Is it perfect that my own beliefs will not bend to my will?

Before I go further I want a better understanding of how much you understand the Christian description of origins and the origins of evil. Can you tell me your understanding?

 

[bhsmte]

My fallibility has no effect on an infallible God existing or not.

You are also fallible in your reluctance to believe my claim that an infallible God exists.

Which is why I rely on independent objective evidence which can be verified, before I make such conclusions. It tends to help with the objectivity.

Any perception you have of a God, is fallible, because no objective evidence is available, to verify the same.

 

[Chriliman]

Which is why I rely on independent objective evidence which can be verified, before I make such conclusions. It tends to help with the objectivity.

Any perception you have of a God, is fallible, because no objective evidence is available, to verify the same.

I understand. For you to believe in God, you expect evidence to be presented to you personally. That's a reasonable expectation.

 

[bhsmte]

I understand. For you to believe in God, you expect evidence to be presented to you personally. That's a reasonable expectation.

Not what I said, read it again.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Before I go further I want a better understanding of how much you understand the Christian description of origins and the origins of evil. Can you tell me your understanding?

Which denomination of Christianity do you want me to use? There is some variability in how I can answer that. If you have no preference, I'll probably end up using a bit of all the ones I am familiar with.

 

[Chriliman]

Which denomination of Christianity do you want me to use? There is some variability in how I can answer that. If you have no preference, I'll probably end up using a bit of all the ones I am familiar with.

That's fine. Use whatever information you have.

 

[lupusFati]

I am whoever I decide to be, within reason. I don't see that as bad, but as a potential for growth.

If anything, other people are what get in my way, dragging down my self-worth to near nothingness... I'm glad I'm breaking free of that.

 

[variant]

Or maybe that's it: that by constantly reminding ourselves that we're not anything or any action but qualitatively more as the elusive sense of consciousness that underlies it, we can gain relief from realizing that we're not being attacked or threatened when any of these ideas are also attacked or threatened. This is part of why the ideal of self-transcendence is so valued: because it helps us get beyond this false sense of self as identity and really enjoy the world.

I highly doubt consciousness is even possible to begin with, without a system that has abstract sense of self.

Identity, rather than being bad, is entirely necessary.

You can not transcend the self to experience if experiences require the abstract self to be experienced.

You would instead descend into the world of sensation without conscious experience.

Underneath all this all the while is the self as consciousness. Nobody considers this guy because he's very much the lens through which all other things are considered. Is it possible to identify with our consciousness only? That would mean that we identify with nothing, because consciousness is ultimately nothing, no-thing in an objective sense, and it's always the consciousness (subject) that objectifies everything else, except other subjects (but that's a complicated discussion).

Consciousness is not a non thing, it is the entire system and experience in total, both the total physical system of thought, and self referential abstract system of thought, and how each of those react with the broader world through experience.

You would do well to consider consciousness, the self, and the world without the usual set of dualistic philosophical assumptions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is it possible for you to consider God objectively, without any negative religious connotations?

Nope. How could I, considering gods are inherently religious concepts?
To learn about gods, religions are the only source. You don't find gods anywhere else but in man-made religions.

IOW, is it possible for you to take someone seriously who believes in God and not ascribe the negative religious connotations to them?

I have never met anyone who believes in gods absent any religions.
I don't see how it is possible to seperate someone's god beliefs from their religious beliefs. They kind of go hand in hand.

Also, just because someone is a theist, doesn't mean I don't take them seriously accross the board. George LeMaitre was a catholic priest and a physicist, the father of Big Bang theory. I sure take his scientific work seriously. I don't take his religious beliefs seriously.

A friend of mine is a great farmer, but horrible with pc's. And he has rather crazy conspiracy theories concerning computers.

When he gives me advice about stuff in my garden, I take him seriously.
When he starts yapping about my laptop, I don't.

Or does your lack of belief in God require you to admit that all who believe in God are unreasonable?

You got that backwards.

I don't think theists are unreasonable because I don't believe in gods.
Rather, I don't believe in gods precisly because I consider such beliefs unreasonable.

You do find it unreasonable to believe in God, correct?

I consider all faith-based beliefs unreasonable. From gods to bigfoot to alien abduction to astrology.

So you must view all who believe in God as unreasonable.

As far as their god beliefs go, yes.
Which, again, doesn't mean I consider them unreasonable accross the board.

A person is perfectly capable of believing irrational things about subject A, while being perfectly reasonable concerning subject B.

Is this fair way to view those of faith?

I don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

 

[Davian]

That's fine. Use whatever information you have.

Have her use my description. It's pretty close to yours, is it not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only logical God to believe in, is a perfectly good God that created perfect beings with free will to choose itself(Good/truth) or not(Bad/lie).

Why?

Are your emotions guiding your beliefs again?
Why couldn't a god be a sadomasochistic douche who's sole reason for creation was to enjoy watching us suffer?

The reason this God is good and true is because it created perfect beings in a completely fair way by allowing them to choose itself or not.

"Perfect" by what standard? What are you comparing us with?
Last time I checked, we are FAR from perfect. In the sense that I can easily come up with a list of traits that would make us a LOT better.

We are stuffed with biological stuff that will only end up hurting us (a mouth to small to fit all our teeth, a spine not fit to walk erect, cells that can mutate and turn into cancers, etc). And that's not even mentioning our psychological weaknesses which makes us very prone to cognitive mistakes, hallucinations, etc.

Our current reality suggests this is true because some believe and some do not.

That makes no sense at all.

A God that only created perfect beings with the only option of choosing itself, would not be considered good or fair, but rather tyrannical. Plus if this God existed then there would be no created being that does not know it exists(this is clearly not our reality)

That doesn't follow at all.

 

[Received]

I highly doubt consciousness is even possible to begin with, without a system that has abstract sense of self.

Identity, rather than being bad, is entirely necessary.

You can not transcend the self to experience if experiences require the abstract self to be experienced.

You would instead descend into the world of sensation without conscious experience.

Consciousness is possible without being aware of this abstract self; that's what we mean when we speak of a self-transcendent experience: we go beyond ourselves and into the phenomena.

Consciousness is not a non thing, it is the entire system and experience in total, both the total physical system of thought, and self referential abstract system of thought, and how each of those react with the broader world through experience.

You would do well to consider consciousness, the self, and the world without the usual set of dualistic philosophical assumptions.

I mean consciousness from the perspective of the one conscious. This is why we refer to the person as a subject, and as a subject he isn't objective; he becomes objective when viewed in a certain way from other subjects (but can also be experienced as a subject by other subjects, but this is complicated). Consciousness in this firsthand sense isn't anything given its subjective and therefore logically non-objective nature. It is therefore nothing, no thing, given its subjectivity.

No idea where you're getting dualism.

 

[variant]

Consciousness is possible without being aware of this abstract self; that's what we mean when we speak of a self-transcendent experience: we go beyond ourselves and into the phenomena.

Sensation without self awareness is not consciousness.

Our "selves" are already part of the phenomena we observe, observation is only possible as a conscious and self aware system, which is non exclusive to the phenomena we are observing.

Trying to eliminate your abstract self ironically removes part of the phenomena you are trying to observe.

I mean consciousness from the perspective of the one conscious. This is why we refer to the person as a subject, and as a subject he isn't objective; he becomes objective when viewed in a certain way from other subjects (but can also be experienced as a subject by other subjects, but this is complicated). Consciousness in this firsthand sense isn't anything given its subjective and therefore logically non-objective nature. It is therefore nothing, no thing, given its subjectivity.

My point is that without the subject the consciousness dissolves, they are one in the same, it's point and it's core (it's basis for existing) are to maintain the identity of both itself and that of the physical being.

The mental beings job is to maintain itself and the physical being, so it observes basically and necessarily with respect to those things.

Trying to become objective (a non subjective consciousness) is basically an oxymoron in my opinion, as consciousness itself is an extension of the subject into the abstract world.

No idea where you're getting dualism.

Your dualism is apparent to me in the idea that you think that the abstract self isn't part of the system it is observing.

A non-thing as you were putting it. This is incorrect. Consciousnesses are simply complex and dynamic systems that are hard to pin down, they definitely exist, as things.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's fine. Use whatever information you have.

Alright. Short summary of the origin of evil from the bible: Humans exist in Eden, as does a forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil god has forbade them from eating the fruit of. Serpent tempts Eve to eat it. Eve gets Adam to eat it. God gets angry. Serpent is punished, both humans and all their descendents are punished. Evil is inherited through Adam and Eve as a result of their consumption of the fruit.