Thread: What is the reason of your existence?

Originally Posted by sloth

You're saying that since we don't understand how the universe came to be it must be God? Why would you assume that it would be God? What's wrong with a magical unicorn? Magical unicorns can create universes using fairy magic.
Furthermore, why did you assume that it was created at all? That is begging the question.

This is another classic logical fallacy. You don't know where the universe came from so you just simply pick something and go with it. This is the same as just making things up.
I don't know who painted this picture. A picture must have been painted by someone. Therefore Bob painted it. Well, how do you know it was Bob? Maybe Tony painted it.
I don't know who's car this. It must belong to someone. Therefore it must be Bob's car.

The fact that the rest of us don't know where the universe came from doesn't automatically mean that you do.

I didn't say I knew where the universe came from nor who or what created. As you quoted my post I was assuming it was GOD because that is what I believe.

So are you saying that it's always been there? Please explain

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I didn't say I knew where the universe came from nor who or what created. As you quoted my post I was assuming it was GOD because that is what I believe.

Right, but that doesn't address my question at all. You don't know where the universe came from, nor who or what created it, so you just pick something and assume that you're right? Why don't you assume that you are wrong, since we probably ALL are. What do you think the chances are that you GUESSED correctly, or that I GUESSED correctly?
You assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

So are you saying that it's always been there? Please explain

I didn't claim anything, but I will humor you, regardless.
If you consider what we know regarding the true nature of reality in the 4th dimension then "always" is a nonsensical term. That's like saying "What is before banana?" or "What is after green?" The question of what came "before the universe" is only valid to those who do not understand, or do not accept 4th dimensional concepts, even when our science and the laws of space/time and gravity RELIES on them.

Originally Posted by sloth

Right, but that doesn't address my question at all. You don't know where the universe came from, nor who or what created it, so you just pick something and assume that you're right? Why don't you assume that you are wrong, since we probably ALL are. What do you think the chances are that you GUESSED correctly, or that I GUESSED correctly?
You assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD because that is what you believe because you assume it was GOD.


I didn't claim anything, but I will humor you, regardless.
If you consider what we know regarding the true nature of reality in the 4th dimension then "always" is a nonsensical term. That's like saying "What is before banana?" or "What is after green?" The question of what came "before the universe" is only valid to those who do not understand, or do not accept 4th dimensional concepts, even when our science and the laws of space/time and gravity RELIES on them.

What's the point in having faith in something and assuming I'm wrong? That just ruins the whole point of having faith. I have had quite a lot of spiritual experiences which has proven to me that god does in fact exist. I can't prove it to you its impossible, it's personal and whatever you believe or have experienced is personal to you also.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

What's the point in having faith in something

I didn't say anything about faith.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

and assuming I'm wrong?

I don't assume that you are wrong. I said that we are most likely both wrong (in one way or another), but that doesn't mean that I assume that you are wrong. I guess it would be more accurate to say that I DON'T assume that you are RIGHT. Consider the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of religions and religious sects that have ever existed. All of the followers of all of those beliefs were all convinced that they were the only ones that knew the truth. The world's leading religion is Christianity at 33% of the entire world's population. Almost all religious beliefs claim that they are the only truth and that no others will enter heaven. Therefore, at LEAST 67% of all people are wrong and will go to hell, and that is if you don't consider the thousands of various sects and denominations under Christianity alone. What are the chances that you or I guessed it completely right? Are you or I that smart, or that lucky? If it's luck then what's the point to begin with?

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

That just ruins the whole point of having faith.

What is the point of having faith?

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I have had quite a lot of spiritual experiences which has proven to me that god does in fact exist. I can't prove it to you its impossible, it's personal and whatever you believe or have experienced is personal to you also.

How is this different from the people who had spiritual experiences which proved to them that the hail bop comet was a space ship that would take them away to heaven? Do you think they were right?
Did you ever believe in Santa? Were you convinced that he was real? If someone had asked you at the time if you had seen proof of Santa what would you have said?
If these things have been proven to you then where does the faith thing come in?

Let me ask you two very important questions:
1. What are two things that you know for sure?
2. Is it possible at all that you are wrong about any one particular thing?

I know you didn't but there's no point in having faith if you're going to assume your wrong. Are you saying that in a sarcastic manner or? I feel like you're saying that you dont have any type of faith, which is hard to believe as it's part of our human nature to act on trust.

I've had a little think about this actually, I'm not assuming I'm wrong, but neither right but I feel that I'm more towards being right than wrong.

You make a good point, I change my mind. Of course what I think is true but there are thousands of other people who think different and think they are right, so you have changed my mind. I'm probably wrong but that won't make me stop believing and having faith until proven wrong.

I've never really thought about it that way Sloth. I feel like I've been too attached to what I believe that I've never really payed attention to what others believe is the truth.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I feel like you're saying that you dont have any type of faith

I think in this instance that the multiple meanings of the word faith are getting in the way of you two understanding what each other means. When you ask someone if they have faith in general like that (and I think you said in your PM that English isn't your first language, which definitely explains where the confusion is coming from), it typically means that you are asking them if they have faith in a specific religion, and not whether he is capable of faith at all.

Originally Posted by snoop

I think in this instance that the multiple meanings of the word faith are getting in the way of you two understanding what each other means. When you ask someone if they have faith in general like that (and I think you said in your PM that English isn't your first language, which definitely explains where the confusion is coming from), it typically means that you are asking them if they have faith in a specific religion, and not whether he is capable of faith at all.

Im sorry, i should of explained more, English is my first language but I'm not good with spelling and overall writing lol

Lol. Well, in that case, I still think it's a confusion of both definitions.

Originally Posted by JoshMcNaught

I know you didn't but there's no point in having faith if you're going to assume your wrong. Are you saying that in a sarcastic manner or? I feel like you're saying that you dont have any type of faith, which is hard to believe as it's part of our human nature to act on trust.

I've had a little think about this actually, I'm not assuming I'm wrong, but neither right but I feel that I'm more towards being right than wrong.

You make a good point, I change my mind. Of course what I think is true but there are thousands of other people who think different and think they are right, so you have changed my mind. I'm probably wrong but that won't make me stop believing and having faith until proven wrong.

I've never really thought about it that way Sloth. I feel like I've been too attached to what I believe that I've never really payed attention to what others believe is the truth.

snoop is almost right. I didn't assume that you meant religious faith, but perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Just because I have faith in something doesn't mean that I know anything for sure. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, but do I know it will? Not at all. I know it's completely possible that we could get knocked out of orbit and never see the sun again. I don't think it's likely, so I have faith in that I live as though I know that the sun will come up tomorrow even if I do not.

For the record, I am a theist. I do believe that there is a God, but do I know this? Can I possibly know anything for sure? To say that I know anything with total absolution is saying that there is absolutely no possibility that I might be wrong, and the only way for that to be is to be more intelligent than anyone else ever. Am I so smart that there is no possibility that I could possibly be wrong about something? I doubt it. I'm not even good at math.

I'm not sure that I was trying to change your mind, or convince you of anything, Josh. I just like challenging people to reexamine their current beliefs. How strong can one's faith be if it is never questioned?

Why do I believe in God? Well,it makes me feel serene,happy ,protected ,and only God I trust nobody in this universe
Can dissuade me of the contrary.when I'm sad or happy I only invoke God it's the first word that comes to mind in all situations.my trust in God is so great that I never left my house in time of war when all of our neighbors did ,very bad things happened to people around us people we knew but nothing happened to us and my husband is chief of police they never approached him they took his friends some of them were killed on the spot some are still in prisons thank God and you know why because I prayed to god to keep us safe and I got a message in a dream ,the two strange birds that I saw in my garden when the battle was near my house in the dream they were sitting on my shoulders and they were comforting me and telling me not to be afraid because they were sent to watch over me and to not be afraid ,I'm not asking you to believe me but I can assure you that I'm not exaggerating or lying because it's a sin for aMoslem to lie about his dream ,and I do have some small miracles that happened to me but like snoop I won't go into that now it's Sakki who started this page and you were hard on her guys so relax and try to comprehend her message she only wanted to glorify God it's not a sin ,and for me I'm absolutely sure there is a God and all of us on this planet are his majestic,absolute,beautiful, creation love you all guys whatever your religion or your inclination it's a free world let's hope that God will rid us of the evil ones!

Originally Posted by sloth

snoop is almost right. I didn't assume that you meant religious faith, but perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Just because I have faith in something doesn't mean that I know anything for sure. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, but do I know it will? Not at all. I know it's completely possible that we could get knocked out of orbit and never see the sun again. I don't think it's likely, so I have faith in that I live as though I know that the sun will come up tomorrow even if I do not.

For the record, I am a theist. I do believe that there is a God, but do I know this? Can I possibly know anything for sure? To say that I know anything with total absolution is saying that there is absolutely no possibility that I might be wrong, and the only way for that to be is to be more intelligent than anyone else ever. Am I so smart that there is no possibility that I could possibly be wrong about something? I doubt it. I'm not even good at math.

I'm not sure that I was trying to change your mind, or convince you of anything, Josh. I just like challenging people to reexamine their current beliefs. How strong can one's faith be if it is never questioned?

"How strong can one's faith be if it is never questioned?" That's a really good point, I feel like it deserves to be quoted again in quotation marks all its own, lol.

As far as my own beliefs, one could say that most of the time, I am an agnostic theist. Gnosticism refers more specifically to knowledge, whereas theism refers to faith in a belief that God exists. So naturally, one can either be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. That doesn't exclude the possibility that one is mistaken in believing that they truly know whether God exists or doesn't exist when they describe themselves as (a)gnostic, although I do feel its silly to claim to be a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. Most of the time, I do believe that God exists, although I have zero faith in my ability to understand what God is, does, wants (if God even wants), or really anything about God. Sometimes I flip flop a bit and think God doesn't exist, but for the most I just entertain the possibility that God doesn't exist for some kind of thought experiment or something, and still actually believe God does exist whether I fully acknowledge it or not. I am very adamant in keeping my faith that God in some form exists from interfering with my life and the lives of others. I don't let my belief dictate my actions and I don't personally like it when others let it dictate their's. I've already said, however, that it doesn't matter to me at all as long as somebody's actions don't force others to do things or prevents them from doing things or otherwise affects them in anyway at all that they do not want (whether they are able to know at the time they want it or not--what I'm getting at here is that I feel like it's a mistake to indoctrinate and manipulate children into believing what you want them to believe and forcing them to behave a certain way; if you present them with all the facts and leave the choice to them, then I don't have a problem with you sharing your beliefs so long as they aren't condemned for making a choice you disagree with). Pragmatically speaking, the ideas that either God does not exist, or that God exists but does not interfere with humans or want them to act in any particular way is the best belief humans can have regarding behaving as a society. We shouldn't make gay marriage illegal because 3 religions out of 7 (just making those numbers up to prove a point) say that marriage is something sacred between a man and a woman. Marriage has legal ramifications and is practiced throughout society regardless of religion, and so it should not be defined, nor should it be constrained by religion. Same goes for birth control, abortion, or any other social/legal issue.

For that matter, I also believe that churches should be taxed like any other institution, at least in the United States (I can't speak for countries I am not a citizen of), so long as they perform services that the state itself also provides. Marriage is a perfect example of why. Either marriage should be handled exclusively by the state, or gay marriages must be performed by churches--regardless of what their religion says about the sanctity of marriage. If you provide services that the states provide, and you are not taxed by the state, you are essentially getting a tax break for services you are failing to provide for discriminatory purposes. Either you legally are allowed licenses to perform marriages and are given a tax break, but act within the law (can't turn down a couple because your religion says its bad for two men or two women to get married), or you are taxed and allowed to pick and choose who you marry free from the law (with the exception of marrying children to adults or some other special case, like one of the people getting married not consenting to the marriage), or that is to say, you can choose to turn away gay couples.

Snoop you have wisdom but you become a blasé

Whether God exist or not is irrelevant to me.

As far as "why i'm here?". hmmm, I don't know and i don't think in terms of "why i'm here." I am here, alive, and enjoying my time on earth. To me that is all that really matters now. How to make the best use of my time while i'm still alive. Finding a reason for my existence will just distract me.

Passionate people can't help themselves that's the whole point !that is why they turn to God for answers and when they're at it they loose so many debates because they will never find a motivated opponent who will stick with him in his quest for enlightenment knowing deep down inside that is a bumpy and lonely road!

Originally Posted by snoop

I do feel its silly to claim to be a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist.

Gnosticism is the only belief that I don't agree with. I can never know for sure that a gnostic doesn't know everything. Maybe he is a demigod, or maybe he has a magic 8 ball that actually works and tells him all of the mysteries of the universe. I don't think it's likely though, so I don't like the idea of gnosticism. It's egotistical and foolish.

Originally Posted by snoop

Most of the time, I do believe that God exists

What is the difference between believing something, knowing something, having faith in something, and thinking something to be true? This is a sincere question. I can't figure this out.

Originally Posted by snoop

We shouldn't make gay marriage illegal because 3 religions out of 7 (just making those numbers up to prove a point) say that marriage is something sacred between a man and a woman.

We shouldn't make it illegal, but churches shouldn't be forced to perform them. They want to be discriminatory. So be it. Let them be prejudice. They don't think they are because they validate everything in their own mind, but everybody around them knows, and history will know as well. A hundred years from now, I don't want people to look back and say "Well the church ALLOWED for gay marriage because it is understanding and enlightened." No. I want people a hundred years from now to see the truth. I want them to look back and say "There was a debate regarding same-gender marriage a hundred years ago, because the church was discriminatory, got tax breaks for being prejudice, made a lot of money in "donations", and this is why the church isn't around today."

Originally Posted by snoop

Marriage has legal ramifications and is practiced throughout society regardless of religion, and so it should not be defined, nor should it be constrained by religion. Same goes for birth control, abortion, or any other social/legal issue.

There is no religion that exists to day that invented marriage. The concept of marriage predates recorded history, and was not originally religious in nature. The church literally adopted the idea that was already ages old, called it their own, made up their own rules about it, and decided by themselves that nobody else could perform marriage.
This is why I am not married. I will not condone this prejudice act. Let the church do what it has always done. Don't prevent it. Religion is on a decline in America, and I'm pretty sure it's because of issues like this. So, let them dig their own graves. Let them act prejudice, so that the masses finally see the truth, and so that we, as a people, do not forget the hate, bigotry, lies, and discrimination performed against a particular group of people by the church. Let it become part of the history books.

I think there is a dichotomy in our views of "religion." On the one hand: it is spirituality, meta-physics, personalized worldview. On the other: it is an institution of social order and indoctrination. The two are entangled but not the same.

Originally Posted by sloth

What is the difference between believing something, knowing something, having faith in something, and thinking something to be true?

From the believer's perspective, there is no difference whatsoever between any of those things. A truly faithful person will be able to insert any of those phrases into a conversation about their beliefs without hesitation, and without noticing any difference between them.

The difference lies in our perception of the faithful, I think. When we need to come up with ways to explain why someone wholeheartedly believes something we are pretty sure isn't true at all, we might deposit their faith into a more acceptable -- and generally diminished -- position, while simultaneously (and not necessarily purposely) elevating our own beliefs (be they based in religion, science, philosophy, common sense, etc) into "higher" categories, like "truth," or "knowledge."

There is no religion that exists to day that invented marriage. The concept of marriage predates recorded history, and was not originally religious in nature. The church literally adopted the idea that was already ages old, called it their own, made up their own rules about it, and decided by themselves that nobody else could perform marriage. This is why I am not married. I will not condone this prejudice act.

You're actually not required to get married by a church, at least not in the U.S. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, and I would even imagine (though I don't know) that more weddings are performed by Justices of the Peace or Judges than by priests. Ultimately a couple is marrying each other, and all the rest (church blessings, state licenses, rice, etc) is just extra stuff to better symbolize the bond the couple already agreed to make.

So refusing to marry because of a church's potential involvement (and, I agree, because of their prejudicial assumption of ownership of the union) in your wedding really isn't necessary... you can marry whenever, and whoever, you wish without any church ever having to hear about it.

Originally Posted by sloth

Gnosticism is the only belief that I don't agree with. I can never know for sure that a gnostic doesn't know everything. Maybe he is a demigod, or maybe he has a magic 8 ball that actually works and tells him all of the mysteries of the universe. I don't think it's likely though, so I don't like the idea of gnosticism. It's egotistical and foolish.

What is the difference between believing something, knowing something, having faith in something, and thinking something to be true? This is a sincere question. I can't figure this out.

We shouldn't make it illegal, but churches shouldn't be forced to perform them. They want to be discriminatory. So be it. Let them be prejudice. They don't think they are because they validate everything in their own mind, but everybody around them knows, and history will know as well. A hundred years from now, I don't want people to look back and say "Well the church ALLOWED for gay marriage because it is understanding and enlightened." No. I want people a hundred years from now to see the truth. I want them to look back and say "There was a debate regarding same-gender marriage a hundred years ago, because the church was discriminatory, got tax breaks for being prejudice, made a lot of money in "donations", and this is why the church isn't around today."

There is no religion that exists to day that invented marriage. The concept of marriage predates recorded history, and was not originally religious in nature. The church literally adopted the idea that was already ages old, called it their own, made up their own rules about it, and decided by themselves that nobody else could perform marriage.
This is why I am not married. I will not condone this prejudice act. Let the church do what it has always done. Don't prevent it. Religion is on a decline in America, and I'm pretty sure it's because of issues like this. So, let them dig their own graves. Let them act prejudice, so that the masses finally see the truth, and so that we, as a people, do not forget the hate, bigotry, lies, and discrimination performed against a particular group of people by the church. Let it become part of the history books.

You know, I actually agree with what you say about letting the church keep on practicing the way they do. Normally it's the way I'd see it too, and still kinda do. I'm actually quite unsure about what I said when it comes to taxation. I think it's something I haven't thought enough about, and the idea of churches being exempt from taxation is a bit irritating, and I was just trying to find some loophole that will either require them to pay up or shut up if you know what I mean.

As far as your question about knowledge, faith, etc. goes, and what the difference even is... I have often thought about this myself. When you look at it only from the present (which in itself is elusive anyway, I can get into how the brain rewrites memory so that sensory information that arrives within 0.08 ms of each other appear to happen simultaneously rather than at different times if anybody wants), they appear to be exactly the same. We can never know something. Any knowledge we have is based off a set of assumptions. The difference lies in how assumptive those assumptions are, and whether one has completely foregone trying to reduce how assumptive an assumption is. The latter is an example of faith. If you don't care that you are making an assumption that isn't based off of evidence, you obviously don't care how assumptive that position is. A belief that it is going to rain two days from now has a greater probability of being true than a matter of faith alone, but less probability of being true than something that can be tested for under controlled conditions, with outcomes that can be reproduced. In the end, every last bit of "knowledge" we have can be questioned and a new assumption it is based on can be discovered. Knowledge itself is a fairly lofty concept, but there is a definite difference between say, the knowledge that gravity (whether our definition of what it is or how it works changes) exists, or that the sun exists, or whatever. And even then, all that depends on whether or not we actually exist, which we can't be sure of. I mean, yeah, I am writing this right now, but then you can start getting into that subjective universe, dreams, hallucinations stuff. Assuming that the latter means nothing can be real is something you can do, but from a practical standpoint, and from one you can test, it appears that there really is at least some shared medium or "objective reality" that you and other human beings inhabit. Otherwise, you rely on your memories for everything. I could be experiencing the first day I've ever been alive every time I wake up, but if my memory tells me that I've lived before, that's all I have to go on. Every single moment could exist in that way. It's just a safer bet to treat things in a way that allows progress, don't you think?

Of course it is better to treat things in a way that allows progress. That is the only real problem with solipsism; the fact that it is just not helpful in any way. Acting upon these assumptions and accepting that they are probably true, all while admitting to oneself that you don't truly know anything is called "soft solipsism", and it is simply undeniable. No matter what anyone can say or do, it is still a solid fact. Even if you witness God Himself come down from the heavens and present himself to you (just an example) you still cannot know anything for sure. After all, there are varieties of datura that present hallucinations exactly like this, and if we were the classic brain in a vat we would, of course, never know.

Consider teleporters, like on Star Trek. Scientists have been studying this concept for a little while, and they've come up with a scary truth. Scientists have determined that given the right tools and machinery this form of transportation is possible. However, the creepy thing that is never truly mentioned in Star Trek is that Captain Kirk died during his first transport, and every transport after that. The molecules are broken down, read, and stored in a pattern buffer, and reassembled on the other side. However, there is a lot of evidence on the show to support the notion that it is not necessarily the SAME particles that make it to the other side. The being that is produced is exactly the same in every way, and even has the same memories, but it is a new person. Does the person know this, unless told? No. The last memories that the original person stored are transferred into the new person, and the new person is never the wiser.

Think of the most beautiful sunset that you've ever seen in your life. I've seen one equally pretty, if not prettier, within a dream. I think it is our experience with lucid dreaming that stands as the perfect example that when everything that we experience is handed to us by our senses in the form of signals, and then translated in our brains to CREATE sounds, imagery, and smell, then there is truly nothing we can know for sure, especially when you consider the fact that our senses and our brains are flawed. No matter what scientific instrument we use to measure something the instrument can be flawed, and so can our perception.

Originally Posted by sloth

Consider teleporters, like on Star Trek. Scientists have been studying this concept for a little while, and they've come up with a scary truth. Scientists have determined that given the right tools and machinery this form of transportation is possible. However, the creepy thing that is never truly mentioned in Star Trek is that Captain Kirk died during his first transport, and every transport after that. The molecules are broken down, read, and stored in a pattern buffer, and reassembled on the other side. However, there is a lot of evidence on the show to support the notion that it is not necessarily the SAME particles that make it to the other side. The being that is produced is exactly the same in every way, and even has the same memories, but it is a new person. Does the person know this, unless told? No. The last memories that the original person stored are transferred into the new person, and the new person is never the wiser.

Here's a funny thing: I've encountered this example many times over the years, and have never had a problem with it. I remember at one of his dream camps LaBerge brought it up, and I really annoyed him when, after he mapped it out for us with great drama and gravity, I said, "So?" He wasn't pleased.

In the end identity is identity, and it really doesn't matter in which physical package our mind currently happens to be wrapped; if we're still the same person, consciously speaking, our physical bodies and brains are just canisters that can be changed out as needed. (and yes, I welcome the coming singularity).

Also:

Think of the most beautiful sunset that you've ever seen in your life. I've seen one equally pretty, if not prettier, within a dream. I think it is our experience with lucid dreaming that stands as the perfect example that when everything that we experience is handed to us by our senses in the form of signals, and then translated in our brains to CREATE sounds, imagery, and smell, then there is truly nothing we can know for sure, especially when you consider the fact that our senses and our brains are flawed. No matter what scientific instrument we use to measure something the instrument can be flawed, and so can our perception.

This is very true, well said, and one of the main reasons I play this LD'ing game: lucidity bypasses the physical filters of perception, and gives us an opportunity to experience, in person, a sort of perfection in the truly Here & Now imagery of dreams... "realer than real," as it were.

Originally Posted by sloth

Consider teleporters, like on Star Trek. Scientists have been studying this concept for a little while, and they've come up with a scary truth. Scientists have determined that given the right tools and machinery this form of transportation is possible. However, the creepy thing that is never truly mentioned in Star Trek is that Captain Kirk died during his first transport, and every transport after that. The molecules are broken down, read, and stored in a pattern buffer, and reassembled on the other side. However, there is a lot of evidence on the show to support the notion that it is not necessarily the SAME particles that make it to the other side. The being that is produced is exactly the same in every way, and even has the same memories, but it is a new person. Does the person know this, unless told? No. The last memories that the original person stored are transferred into the new person, and the new person is never the wiser.

Do you really think that it takes something like a teleporter for a reality like that to be the truth? I mean, you are never the same particles you were a moment ago, at least part of you is different. When it comes to who you were years ago, none of you is the same. I've always liked it when shows posed this question implicitly using some mechanic like this. I've seen others where people can just be copied like faxes, transported in a similar way, etc. The idea might seem scary at first, but you begin to realize how illusory that the idea of "you" actually is. When you get right down to it, there isn't a place in the brain that singularly contains your consciousness. The parts of you that sense and feels things unconsciously are equally you as well. The more we study the brain and consciousness/awareness, the more it becomes apparent that we have even less control over ourselves than we realize or like to admit.

If we could apply the same principal used to teleport someone from one place in spacetime to another to in fact create duplicates of people (clones aren't really the right word in this case), are they all really the same person? Obviously that answer is no, a single person can no longer be "single" if multiple versions of that person exists in front of you. We would tend to think they are all different people who happen to be that same person. I mean, at the exact instant of their creation (or rather duplication), they all the materials that made them up matched completely. The longer time passes, the more divergent these people become from that person they all started from, so technically they really are different people. However, which person is the original? I mean, do we have to "tag" each individual particle that makes up a person and compare it at a later time and see if the particles making them up are still "tagged" in order for it to be that person still? If the duplicates were actually made from teleporting someone's information and the duplicates were actually made at the same time, can we say an original exists? Can we say an original actually existed? Well, we did see one person before three came out, right? I guess they are the original.

Now onto what these duplicates feel about themselves. They all claim to be the same person, although each of them is clearly separate and they can confirm that their consciousnesses aren't actually existing in three places at once. Their mind is telling them that they are indeed that person, and none of them would actually be wrong. They are in fact that person, if we go by a DNA basis alone, or if we go with many of our multiple definitions of what it means to be "you". The only conclusion one can come to is that our current concepts of what "we" are as "individuals" is inaccurate, if not completely wrong. Our ideas of what make us "us" are useful for most practical applications, much in the same way that it is useful to introduce young people without a background in physics to Newtonian physics before jumping straight into Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, or even worse, quantum mechanics. We have to backtrack and start over again (at least, mostly start over) when it comes to our concepts on what makes you an individual.

It is actually fair to say, based on this understanding, that the you at any given moment is always unique, and what determines this "you" is what you are composed of, where you are, when you are, and possibly other factors yet to be determined. If three of you suddenly existed at once, but were in different physical locations all in what we can call "relatively" the same time (considering all time scales are local, the time passing for your head and feet, or any other comparison you can make, for that matter, passes at different rates), they can still all be separately identified and exist separately... lol, obviously. Anyway, if the you that you are now is always unique from the you that existed even fractions of seconds ago, you are never the same person you think you are to begin with. As a matter of fact, given that the particles that happen to make you up exist in different local times (even if only infinitesimally different), is it fair to say a "you", in the form of consciousness, exists at all? I mentioned in another post that the brain is also capable of (and does) rewrite memories so that events that might have happened technically within 0.08ms of each other actually appear to happen simultaneously. In every way, the description that consciousness is a linear representation of non-linear systems is correct. TV stations don't have to worry about the audio and visuals syncing up as long as the audio happens within 0.08ms of the visuals, your brain will take care of the rest. They don't happen at the same time (are non-linear), but are represented linearly. Our idea of us is a useful concept to explain, simply, what happens in our world. Why you decided to do something, how something happened to you, what happened to someone else, etc. It isn't accurate beyond those simplified representations.

But clearly, you experience that you exist. You experience dreams too though, right? They exist in a way, but perhaps not in a way that isn't disturbing to us when you get down to it. You exist in the same way your dreams exist. To everyone but you, your experiences and dreams are merely a result of physical phenomena. If we go ahead and entertain the idea that we are somehow more than the manifestation of these physical phenomena, maybe this is actually comforting, I don't know. All I do know is that believing you are the same you from moment to moment is erroneous. Useful, but simply not possible. And when you really think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Are you actually the same you that you were as a child? Not at all, even if you once were, you aren't now. Why is it any different from a few seconds ago or a day ago? Just like Kirk being killed when beamed in Star Trek and him being none-the-wiser that he is no longer that person, nor is anybody ever the same person they were before (and neither are they typically aware of it).

Might I quote from The Myth of Sisyphus (1955) by Albert Camus (from whence my username comes):

[The absurd man] demands of himself to live solely of what he knows, to accommodate himself to what is, and to bring in nothing that is not certain. He is told that nothing is. But this at least is certainty. And it is this with which he is concerned: he wants to find out if it possible to live without appeal.

Camus then waxes on about the question of suicide. I'll skip that and continue here:

When Nietzsche writes: "It clearly seems that the chief thing in heaven and on earth is to obey at length and in a single direction: in the long run there results something for which in the long run is worth the trouble of living on this earth, as for example, virtue, art, music, the dance, reason, the mind--something that transfigures, something delicate, mad, or divine," he elucidates the rule of a really distinguished code of ethics. But he also points the way of the absurd man. Obeying the flame is both the easiest and hardest thing to do. However, it is good for man to judge himself occassionally. He is alone in being able to do so.

And then some more rumination. I conclude with this passage:

But it is bad to stop, hard to be satisfied with a single way of seeing, to go without contradiction, perhaps the most subtle of all forces. The preceding merely defines a way of thinking. But the point is to live.

I've really enjoyed this thread, thanks for getting it started Sakki.

As a child I tried very hard to have faith in my parents religion and it took way too long before I realized that was an oxymoron. Since I figured that out for myself no amount of study has been enough to "turn" me into a follower of any religion but I would dearly like to have the certainty that such faith brings. However, like Sisyphus said:

...If you keep asking, you will not find an absolute answer. You will only find and dwell on the same circular conclusions that other humans have arrived at for millennia. Nonetheless, you might find purpose in the process of questioning.

And I've found that to be true.

Originally Posted by Sageous

From the believer's perspective, there is no difference whatsoever between any of those things. A truly faithful person will be able to insert any of those phrases into a conversation about their beliefs without hesitation, and without noticing any difference between them.

I don't really see a difference either. We are simply processing information in our brains. The only difference that I see lies in the conviction that one has on the idea.

Originally Posted by Sageous

You're actually not required to get married by a church, at least not in the U.S. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, and I would even imagine (though I don't know) that more weddings are performed by Justices of the Peace or Judges than by priests. Ultimately a couple is marrying each other, and all the rest (church blessings, state licenses, rice, etc) is just extra stuff to better symbolize the bond the couple already agreed to make.

That's kind of what I thought. This correlates with my assertion that we should not make it illegal, even if the church is not required to do it. The church is free to be as prejudiced and discriminatory as they wish. It will simply make things more clear to the rest of us.