Beyond God and Evil

[Dave Toast]

* it would provide you with an example to strive towards in improving yourself,
* it would provide you with hope (of assistance in times of trouble; of the possibility of better things to come),
* it might make you value your life more than you otherwise would, knowing that divinity takes an interest in it.

You are the divine. It is interest. It is hope. It is the example to strive for.

It's all in you.

The importance of being earnest. ;-)

Dave,

Thanks for the affirmations. You should be a motivational speaker. :-)

They ain't no mere motivational speaker style, throw-away positive affirmations though mate. Thems is important words of practical (as opposed to spiritual) advice, for anyone and everyone.

[earnest_seeker]

earnest: It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Leyla: You're insane. It’s fantasy because, unlike humans (remember them?), “He” cannot be shown to exist or any order except that of a pink elephant---again, this is despite certain supposed human characteristics.

So something that you have not experienced any evidence for is necessarily a fantasy, and someone who claims that they have experienced evidence for it is necessarily insane? Where exactly does that necessity come from? Oh, I remember: from your preconceptions.

earnest: I'm not asking you to prove that humans came from something beyond existence, I'm asking you to prove that such a thing is impossible. Clearly you can't, yet you maintain it dogmatically anyway, so you'll just have to cop on the chin that you are, indeed, closed-minded.

Leyla: Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly, you’re completely blind to your own contradictions. Above you say you are asking me to prove that it is impossible that humans came from something beyond existence, asserting that I can’t and calling me, therefore, closed-minded. Then, you think you excuse yourself (actually, to be honest, I don't think it's at all even that conscious) for having posed this question as follows:

And where did I say that God is "beyond existence"? As far as I'm concerned He's a part of it.

That's pure nitpicking, Leyla. When I wrote "I'm not asking you to prove that humans came from something beyond existence", I was simply taking your words and working with them. I later clarified that I don't believe in that paradigm. If you were a reasonable person, then you would have looked back and said something like "Oh, he used my words but he doesn't actually agree with them, perhaps I should ask if there's a sensible rewording that he has in mind." If you'd asked me that, then I would have provided my suggested reworking of "something beyond existence" into "a higher power".

So, what do you want, Laird, and of whose making is the ridiculous nature of this discussion, really?

What I want is for you to acknowledge that you have been unable to prove the impossibility of a God of the type that I have described, and that it is in theory possible that a person could receive such empirical evidence as would reasonably lead to a belief in such a God, and that your scorn and derision are therefore unjustified, and are in fact character flaws: flaws which in truly topsy-turvy fashion you wear with pride.

As for whose making is the "ridiculous" nature of this discussion, I reject the characterisation "ridiculous", so I'm unable to answer the question as it stands.

earnest: You've lost me. I have no reference point for this question. Where's it coming from?

Leyla: Have a fucking think about it! You keep getting lost because you have no god-damned centre or focus for your thinking.

Or perhaps it's because your arguments are so biased that it's hard to know what you're going to relate to what next.

Here’s a hint, see my first reply in this post.

That doesn't help. Please spell it out.

earnest: I answered it clearly and concisely.

Leyla: Listen r-e-e-e-a-l-l-y carefully: “yes I am” or “no I am not” to the proposition, “Are you or are you not…”?

Oh, I see, you want something stark and binary. In that case, the answer is "yes I am", with the qualification that "human characteristics" might equally be phrased "divine characteristics" (which is the bias that I was trying to counter with my original answer).

earnest_seeker: It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Fujaro: Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes a claim for the existence of a hitherto unproven entity?

Sure, but I'm not out to prove my claim to anyone else. As I've already written, I have (experience-based) reasons for my belief which are satisfactory to me but that I don't wish to share. You either accept that or you don't, either way makes no difference to me, unless of course you intend to approach me like Leyla, who has a vested interest in denying possibilities: in that case it does make a difference to me because I get sucked into an argument with an attack-dog(matist).

Anyway, to me it's not so much about "proof" (which, aside from pure logic/mathematics I find to be a problematic word - i.e. what I find problematic is that the threshold for empirical proof is somewhat arbitrary) of any individual scenario, but about which scenario is most probable out of all of the conceivable possibilities given the evidence.

I also throw back at you: the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. Leyla is doing exactly that: she is claiming that my beliefs are a fantasy.

[earnest_seeker]

They ain't no mere motivational speaker style, throw-away positive affirmations though mate. Thems is important words of practical (as opposed to spiritual) advice, for anyone and everyone.

Indeed, and I didn't mean to devalue them through my reaction.

[Leyla Shen]

It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes a claim for the existence of a hitherto unproven entity?

Don't be silly. You're speaking to the anointed believers.

[Leyla Shen]

One teeny spoonful at a time:

Laird: It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Leyla: You're insane. It’s fantasy because, unlike humans (remember them?), “He” cannot be shown to exist or any order except that of a pink elephant---again, this is despite certain supposed human characteristics.

Laird: So something that you have not experienced any evidence for is necessarily a fantasy, and someone who claims that they have experienced evidence for it is necessarily insane? Where exactly does that necessity come from? Oh, I remember: from your preconceptions.

I have no issue with the possibility of alien life forms, with or without similar characteristics to humans. But the possibility of a single, creator being "god" who made man in his own image is quite a stretch from that. Evidence clearly shows, and to which you agree, that certain characteristics attributed to such a god are, in fact, human. That is, quite bloody simply, my evidence. So, what evidence do you have to demonstrate that they were, in the first instance, your "god's"? Yes, you are making the claim, you need to provide the proof.

[mikiel]

I went to all the trouble to get into persona as a Melchizedek priest (yes I was "duly ordained") to comment on this topic (on 7/1, pg 2)... but no reply. Did the robe and pulpit intimidate the rabble?

Seems like folks here are so into wisecracks and looking like cool intellectuals (like god is made in the image of man... well, the guy in the beard touching fingers with Adam .... on the most famous chapel ceiling... is the case in mind)... that there can be no serious debate on the classic "problem of evil."

I was actually serious in that post, tho the role-play drama at the end was just for fun.
If anyone cares to take another look and comment, I will be as serious as you are. It *is* the esential core of this topic.

mikiel (Eternal Order of Melchizedek... not the "new age dude" cult version, but the priesthood at the root of the whole Judeo-Christian Tradition... sans the church doctrine invented by the poor "sinners" in hope of salvation who decided to worship Jesus as the "only son of God.")

[Dan Rowden]

I went to all the trouble to get into persona as a Melchizedek priest (yes I was "duly ordained") to comment on this topic (on 7/1, pg 2)... but no reply. Did the robe and pulpit intimidate the rabble?

I suspect they were put off by its nonsensical content. Free will is an illusion and can't be otherwise. God is "responsible" for our atrocities and this also cannot be otherwise for breathtakingly obvious reasons. And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness". That is a totally nonsensical idea. Consciousness is a finite something directed at other finite somethings. Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious?

The rest of that post was simply stating that we are all parts of Nature, which is a pretty mundane observation.

[Matt Gregory]

It's the exact same argument that Iolaus made. God is not a babysitter, etc.

[Dan Rowden]

Funny that the point of view doesn't spell out how/why it is that recognizing our status in the divine makes us want to do things other than commit atrocities. I wonder how that works, exactly.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, good point. Maybe recognizing the divine makes us commit even worse atrocities. There's also the question of why we commit atrocities if we don't recognize the divine and why God would give us the "freedom" to not recognize it and think that's some kind of gift. I mean, I guess I should be thankful that I could live my life without ever opening my eyelids if I wanted to. Praise Jesus!

[mikiel]

I went to all the trouble to get into persona as a Melchizedek priest (yes I was "duly ordained") to comment on this topic (on 7/1, pg 2)... but no reply. Did the robe and pulpit intimidate the rabble?

I suspect they were put off by its nonsensical content. Free will is an illusion and can't be otherwise. God is "responsible" for our atrocities and this also cannot be otherwise for breathtakingly obvious reasons. And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness". That is a totally nonsensical idea. Consciousness is a finite something directed at other finite somethings. Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious?

The rest of that post was simply stating that we are all parts of Nature, which is a pretty mundane observation.

I was about to go toe to toe, point by point with you on your last ridiculous and totally evasive reply, but then the above appeared, so now i will just cut to the quick and expose your foolishness much more directly.

In sophomoric terms one might ask, "If God is omnipotent, why can He not make free will a real gift to humanity rather than an illusory hoax?"
In more mature terms, you don't know what Gnosis is. Gnosis is knowing (no belief or doubt about it... direct identity) that "I Am God"... One consciousness in all... cosmically speaking. This Gnosis is true awakening... enlightenment. You will not *know* this Truth until you awaken from your egoic sleep as a "separate identity" (always trying to stay on top in the egoic dogfight.)

You obviously still think God is 'something else' exterior to human consciousness... It requires actual awakening into our true identity as Divine consciousness to *know* the Truth that sets all free... the free will of our divine creatorhood... one with God... free of the illusion of separate identity.

You said, " And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness".
This is the sign on your forhead, in bold (or flaming, if you prefer) letters, saying ... "I am not enlightened. I am my ego. I deny my divine identity."
(Actually you said it more briefly yourself... "There is no cosmic or divine 'consciousness.'")

Consciousness is omnipresent, i.e. infinite. Not a finite "thing" but the awareness of all things and also transcending all things.
I know this from direct experience, and you have no clue.

"Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious? "

Of the whole cosmos... It's body (like we humans are of ours) *and* of the eternal, unchanging, witnessing awareness ItSelf, *transcending* what It... we... are aware of. Consciousness transcends content. Meditation 101... and the basis of all permanent awakening... all of which you are totally clueless.

I will break it down to the simplest and most present example for you.
You are aware of the words here present... and to a very minimal degree... their meaning. Who is aware? Who are you besides what you are aware of in this moment?
Maybe it will dawn on you in a lucid dream and you will actually contemplate the meaning of the above question. "I, Who?" (Not "what am I conscious of in this moment, but Who is conscious(ness?)... and then you will wake up and thank this teacher for your awakening.... OR NOT!
I'll bet the farm on you staying asleep for this whole incarnation... and probably many more to come.
Sorry 'bout that. It's the best I can do given yor present "density" as one without a clue to what transcendence (or True Self Awareness actually is.
mikiel

[earnest_seeker]

One teeny spoonful at a time:

Please drop the condescension, Leyla. It's not justified and it's not helpful.

earnest: It's purely your assertion that it's a fantasy, and it's an assertion that you have been unable to prove.

Leyla: You're insane. It’s fantasy because, unlike humans (remember them?), “He” cannot be shown to exist or any order except that of a pink elephant---again, this is despite certain supposed human characteristics.

earnest: So something that you have not experienced any evidence for is necessarily a fantasy, and someone who claims that they have experienced evidence for it is necessarily insane? Where exactly does that necessity come from? Oh, I remember: from your preconceptions.

Leyla: I have no issue with the possibility of alien life forms, with or without similar characteristics to humans. But the possibility of a single, creator being "god" who made man in his own image is quite a stretch from that.

This is supposed to be an argument? Somehow you get from "quite a stretch" to "impossible". How is that ground covered? For what it's worth, some people consider that alien life forms are "quite a stretch". That doesn't make them impossible.

Evidence clearly shows, and to which you agree, that certain characteristics attributed to such a god are, in fact, human.

I have agreed that God and humans share certain characteristics: that doesn't make those characteristics any more human than it makes them divine. Please remove your bias.

That is, quite bloody simply, my evidence.

It's not evidence, it's a biased framework.

So, what evidence do you have to demonstrate that they were, in the first instance, your "god's"?

First off, I never made the claim that they were in the first instance God's, I simply canvassed that as one of two possibilities other than that humans created God in man's image: the other possibility being that humans and God share common origins. I don't need to provide evidence because I'm not making any specific claim. I'm open to possibilities.

Yes, you are making the claim, you need to provide the proof.

Actually no, I'm not making that claim. See above.

I'd like to at this point summarise proceedings, since you, Leyla, have failed to respond to the substantial points that I have put to you:
1. Earnest reveals his belief in a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent (to the extent that that word makes sense) God, and explains that it is an experience-based belief but that he is unwilling to share details of those experiences.
2. Leyla derides Earnest, implying that he believes in the impossible and later on strengthening this implication.
3. Earnest challenges Leyla to justify her implication that his beliefs are impossible.
4. Leyla justifies the impossibility of such a God by arguing that, because such a God is possessed of characteristics which she has to date seen only associated with humans, that that God must be purely an imaginary construct of man and could not possibly actually exist.
5. Earnest points out that Leyla's argument amounts to the adoption of a bias because Leyla has provided no good reason to prefer such a scenario with the two other scenarios: that mankind derives from God, and that mankind and God derive from common origins.
6. Leyla completely ignores (5), even though it destroys her argument.

That's where things stand right now, Leyla. In other words, you currently have no argument.

[Beingof1]

And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness". That is a totally nonsensical idea.

How do you know? Where would you look for divine consciousness? How would you know if you found it? What would divine consciousness look like? What would prove it to be divine consciousness? Where would it begin? Where would it end?

How much of the universe have you explored? 10 percent? 5 percent? 1percent?

Consciousness is a finite something directed at other finite somethings.

I see the mantra is still holding firm despite reality protesting.

Answer this one question - If consciousness is finite, who or what is comparing it to other things?

Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious?

Whatever you are conscious of.

[Dan Rowden]

I went to all the trouble to get into persona as a Melchizedek priest (yes I was "duly ordained") to comment on this topic (on 7/1, pg 2)... but no reply. Did the robe and pulpit intimidate the rabble?

I suspect they were put off by its nonsensical content. Free will is an illusion and can't be otherwise. God is "responsible" for our atrocities and this also cannot be otherwise for breathtakingly obvious reasons. And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness". That is a totally nonsensical idea. Consciousness is a finite something directed at other finite somethings. Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious?

The rest of that post was simply stating that we are all parts of Nature, which is a pretty mundane observation.

I was about to go toe to toe, point by point with you on your last ridiculous and totally evasive reply,

Oh, please, you describe any reply you don't like in these terms, whatever the content.

but then the above appeared, so now i will just cut to the quick and expose your foolishness much more directly.

Oh, goody. There was nothing on TV anyway.

In sophomoric terms one might ask, "If God is omnipotent, why can He not make free will a real gift to humanity rather than an illusory hoax?"

There's no need for such questions. Free will cannot be other than an illusion because thoughts are determined by causes. God doesn't need to enter the picture of this matter.

In more mature terms, you don't know what Gnosis is. Gnosis is knowing (no belief or doubt about it... direct identity) that "I Am God"... One consciousness in all... cosmically speaking.

What has that got to do with whether will is free or not?

This Gnosis is true awakening... enlightenment. You will not *know* this Truth until you awaken from your egoic sleep as a "separate identity" (always trying to stay on top in the egoic dogfight.)

Nice evasion. You started off moderately relevant and then went off into some rant about Oneness - that I already understand. And btw, that Gnosis is not enlightenment because it is not ultimately true. We can see ourselves in an infinite sense or in a finite sense, as the mood takes us, but neither sense represents what is ultimately true of Reality. Neither form nor formless.

You obviously still think God is 'something else' exterior to human consciousness...

You don't have the slightest clue what I think, which is part of the reason your insipid descriptions of my philosophy attract the derision I direct at them. God is the Totality and cannot be exterior to anything. As I said just before, we can see ourselves in two ways: in an infinite sense, identical with that Totality, or in a finite sense as a causal appearance. Neither view, however, is what is ultimately true of us.

It requires actual awakening into our true identity as Divine consciousness to *know* the Truth that sets all free... the free will of our divine creatorhood... one with God... free of the illusion of separate identity.

That doesn't tell me how it makes will, free. It also doesn't tell me what divine consciousness is.

You said, " And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness".
This is the sign on your forhead, in bold (or flaming, if you prefer) letters, saying ... "I am not enlightened. I am my ego. I deny my divine identity."
(Actually you said it more briefly yourself... "There is no cosmic or divine 'consciousness.'")

Consciousness is omnipresent, i.e. infinite. Not a finite "thing" but the awareness of all things and also transcending all things. I know this from direct experience, and you have no clue.

That is patently absurd. There is nothing for the infinite to be conscious of - there is nothing of the infinite to be at all, besides infinite. Consciousness involves form. There is no infinite consciousness, there is only consciousness of the infinite. I think you're getting the two things confused.

"Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious? "
Of the whole cosmos... It's body (like we humans are of ours) *and* of the eternal, unchanging, witnessing awareness ItSelf, *transcending* what It... we... are aware of. Consciousness transcends content. Meditation 101... and the basis of all permanent awakening... all of which you are totally clueless.

Yogic blather. The "Cosmos" (Totality) has no form, no body to be conscious of. Consciousness is content and nothing else. To say consciousness transcends content is to say exactly nothing.

I will break it down to the simplest and most present example for you. You are aware of the words here present... and to a very minimal degree... their meaning. Who is aware?

There is no who, there is just the awareness. Awareness can't be found in a location or possessed by something.

Who are you besides what you are aware of in this moment?

There are only ever appearances. They make up the body of what is, in terms of form. But that is not the whole of Reality. It is just the whole of form.

Maybe it will dawn on you in a lucid dream and you will actually contemplate the meaning of the above question. "I, Who?" (Not "what am I conscious of in this moment, but Who is conscious(ness?)... and then you will wake up and thank this teacher for your awakening.... OR NOT!

Thanks, but you're mistaking me for some spiritual neophyte. There is no "I" that is conscious of anything -the "I" and all ideas about it are just more items of content in the overall awareness - i.e. set of appearances.

I'll bet the farm on you staying asleep for this whole incarnation... and probably many more to come.

You believe in reincarnation (transmigration) in a literal sense?

Sorry 'bout that. It's the best I can do given yor present "density" as one without a clue to what transcendence (or True Self Awareness actually is).

Good on ya. Glad I was here to help you feel useful.

[Leyla Shen]

“…(to the extent that that word makes sense)…”

Mm-hm.

One day, maybe you’ll wake up and realise that the impossibility of a vague sort of something doesn’t require any other proof than itself. That’s what you have. Its nature allows you to take no responsibility for its sheer lack of philosophical, logical or empirical substance. It can morph seamlessly into some other vague sort of something on your emotional whim. As far as the belief in a vague sort of something, well---of course that's possible. I couldn’t possibly argue against that with you and win.

[earnest_seeker]

Maybe one day you'll address your lack of argument-against-impossibility, as summarised in my last post.

As for vagueness: I wrote "to the extent that that word makes sense". That's quite distinct from "I don't know what I mean when I use this word". I could explain to you what I intend when I use the word omnibenevolent, but I don't see much point in providing more fodder for this conversation to continue. You've demonstrated amply that all that you have is a closed-minded bias, and you ignore all opportunities to demonstrate otherwise. You're not interested in discussion, you're simply interested in trying to prove that I'm a fool.

Here, I've played it to you before but it's time that you heard it again.

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, you thought I was finished?

6 Jul---2:59 pm

First off, I never made the claim that they were in the first instance God's, I simply canvassed that as one of two possibilities other than that humans created God in man's image: the other possibility being that humans and God share common origins. I don't need to provide evidence because I'm not making any specific claim. I'm open to possibilities.

1 Jul---1:13 pm

4. It implies a belief that God created the Devil (a fallen angel), which I don't believe - I believe that the Devil is a preexisting counterpart to God, beyond God's direct control.

It follows from these two statements that either you believe "Satan" pre-existed both your "God" and humans or that both Satan and (your) "God" pre-existed humans. However, Satan being a counterpart to God, one assumes you meant that your god, too, was pre-existing.

Can we have a definitive commitment on the nature of your belief here?

On the other hand, you could just be open to everything (and, therefore, nothing), in which case your belief at best is in, as I said, a vague kind of something.

[earnest_seeker]

Oh, you thought I was finished?

Yup, I did.

[reordering]

On the other hand, you could just be open to everything (and, therefore, nothing), in which case your belief at best is in, as I said, a vague kind of something.

That's quite dishonest. You started out all guns blazing, attacking my beliefs: clearly they were well defined enough for you to "know" that they were impossible. Now when you're hard pressed to find justification for that "knowledge", you charge me with vagueness, implying that, rather than you having to prove the impossibility of the existence of the God that I described, His existence is necessarily impossible because it is too ill-defined. So what exactly was it that you were attacking in the first place then? Do you make a habit of attacking things that have no substance?

6 Jul---2:59 pm

First off, I never made the claim that they were in the first instance God's, I simply canvassed that as one of two possibilities other than that humans created God in man's image: the other possibility being that humans and God share common origins. I don't need to provide evidence because I'm not making any specific claim. I'm open to possibilities.

1 Jul---1:13 pm

4. It implies a belief that God created the Devil (a fallen angel), which I don't believe - I believe that the Devil is a preexisting counterpart to God, beyond God's direct control.

It follows from these two statements that either you believe Satan pre-existed both your god and humans or that Satan pre-existed your god and humans. However, being a counterpart, one assumes you meant that your god, too, was pre-existing.

Can we have a definitive commitment on the nature of your belief here?

OK, fair enough, it does seem like a contradiction. I can explain it by telling you that some of my beliefs are more tentative than others. So let me clarify that that particular belief is reasonably tentative, bordering on speculation. i.e. I tentatively believe that God and the Devil are in some sense preexisting "equals", and by "preexisting" I mean having the type of eternal, necessary existence that QRS impute to the Totality. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong about that, and that they came into existence at some later point, perhaps even through a process of evolution (which is the reason why I say that there's the possibility that God and humans have a common origin). I'm also open to the possibility that they are entirely local entities and that there are other realms of existence where other "supernatural" entities manifest, or where there are in fact no such "supernatural" entities.

So much for the vagueness. Let me give you something to grip onto then. My strong belief is that both of these entities exist, that they wield a lot of power (but that neither of them is all-powerful), that they have opposite natures, that they actively oppose one another, and that God is an intensely good, loving and virtues force whereas the Devil seeks to inflict suffering through the tools of deceit and vice.

Ask if there's anything else that you want to know, but please, enough with the scorn, derision and condescension. I'm really sick of it, Leyla, and if you hit me with any more then I'll probably bow politely out of the conversation.

[Leyla Shen]

Laird:

That's quite dishonest.

It’s not dishonest at all. It’s perfectly true. You just don’t like it because of your strong belief in god and satan.

That “vague kind of something” applies to the term “god” itself and the lack of meaning (making it a vague sort of something) you actually have for it and what it points to. In one breath, you call it an entity and in others, a being, a force…

That definitely qualifies as a vague sort of something.

Do you make a habit of attacking things that have no substance?

I attack thinking that lacks substance (that is, which is incoherent and convoluted), certainly. What else am I going to attack on a message board?

OK, fair enough, it does seem like a contradiction. I can explain it by telling you that some of my beliefs are more tentative than others.

It doesn’t seem like a contradiction, it is a contradiction, whether or not you relegate it to tentative belief, which is why you are bothering to elaborate on the terms at all.

So much for the vagueness. Let me give you something to grip onto then. My strong belief is that both of these entities exist, that they wield a lot of power (but that neither of them is all-powerful), that they have opposite natures, that they actively oppose one another, and that God is an intensely good, loving and virtues force whereas the Devil seeks to inflict suffering through the tools of deceit and vice.

Yeah, I got that. The thing is, it's rubbish. If the question of pre-existence belongs in your “tentative/speculative” category, what justification do you have for using the terms God and the Devil as part of your strong belief category as opposed to simply discussing the force of good and the force of evil? Why (that is, with what justification), Laird, do you hang on to these terms for dear life?

Ask if there's anything else that you want to know, but please, enough with the scorn, derision and condescension. I'm really sick of it, Leyla, and if you hit me with any more then I'll probably bow politely out of the conversation.

According to your strong beliefs, I see no reason not to assume that I am necessarily divinely inspired by either your god of evil or your god of good, as you certainly must assume to be yourself. Hence, I make no such commitment to you other than I will do as is willed, as I have always done!

[mikiel]

.... Dan:

Free will is an illusion and can't be otherwise. God is "responsible" for our atrocities and this also cannot be otherwise for breathtakingly obvious reasons. And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness". That is a totally nonsensical idea. Consciousness is a finite something directed at other finite somethings. Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious?

God *is* consciousness, the body of Whom is cosmos. Human bodies are micro-particles in God's body, and consciousness transcends all form, being omnipresent in all forms. Ego claims "my consciousness" but there is no barrier or membrane dividing consciousness into units mainifest in individual forms. There is no true freedom in the programing/conditioning of humans-as-egocentric-robots.... the pre-awakenened state of all. Freedom is in awakening into identity with God-the-Creator... omnipresent consciousness. I know this is way beyond your grasp, as you have never experienced consciousness-transcending-content, as obvious in your posts.
m:

In sophomoric terms one might ask, "If God is omnipotent, why can He not make free will a real gift to humanity rather than an illusory hoax?"

There's no need for such questions. Free will cannot be other than an illusion because thoughts are determined by causes. God doesn't need to enter the picture of this matter.
Free will lies in consciousness itself as transcending content... as above. Until you experience the Universal "I Am" as God-consciousness manifesting in/through your individual life you will remain ignorant of your identity as God-here-now. And you will continue to be a slave to ego and the billiard-ball version of cause and effect... in the absence of transcendence... not realizing your God-hood as the One "shooting pool" in your life.

In more mature terms, you don't know what Gnosis is. Gnosis is knowing (no belief or doubt about it... direct identity) that "I Am God"... One consciousness in all... cosmically speaking.

What has that got to do with whether will is free or not?
As above. The "Truth that sets us free" is knowing "I Am God "(consciousness) manifesting as this life, these forms, locally.

This Gnosis is true awakening... enlightenment. You will not *know* this Truth until you awaken from your egoic sleep as a "separate identity" (always trying to stay on top in the egoic dogfight.)

Nice evasion. You started off moderately relevant and then went off into some rant about Oneness - that I already understand. And btw, that Gnosis is not enlightenment because it is not ultimately true. We can see ourselves in an infinite sense or in a finite sense, as the mood takes us, but neither sense represents what is ultimately true of Reality. Neither form nor formless.
You are still not hearing me. "Conscious unity"... Oneness *is identity with God, the Creator, un-conditioned by creation, therefore free to create.... Creation is not an iron chain of determinism as you seem to believe.

You obviously still think God is 'something else' exterior to human consciousness...

You don't have the slightest clue what I think, which is part of the reason your insipid descriptions of my philosophy attract the derision I direct at them. God is the Totality and cannot be exterior to anything. As I said just before, we can see ourselves in two ways: in an infinite sense, identical with that Totality, or in a finite sense as a causal appearance. Neither view, however, is what is ultimately true of us.

My statement above was based on your "God is "responsible" for our atrocities"... which sounds like the ultimate cop-out, like "The Devil (God... Whoever) made me do it. A ridiculous position in total denial of our very real freedom to ignore/deny God, Which is our true Essence and Nature... Who *will not* commit atrocities.
I've said many times that our identity is One... cosmic consciousness and our individual forms are (obviously) finite. Two aspects of Being... in non-dual awareness. It is not that neither is ultimately true but that both are true at once.

It requires actual awakening into our true identity as Divine consciousness to *know* the Truth that sets all free... the free will of our divine creatorhood... one with God... free of the illusion of separate identity.

That doesn't tell me how it makes will, free. It also doesn't tell me what divine consciousness is.
The illusion of separate identity is slavery. Enlightenment, God consciousness is freedom. I can't say it more clearly than that.

You said, " And there is no cosmic or divine "consciousness".
This is the sign on your forhead, in bold (or flaming, if you prefer) letters, saying ... "I am not enlightened. I am my ego. I deny my divine identity."
(Actually you said it more briefly yourself... "There is no cosmic or divine 'consciousness.'")

Consciousness is omnipresent, i.e. infinite. Not a finite "thing" but the awareness of all things and also transcending all things. I know this from direct experience, and you have no clue.

That is patently absurd. There is nothing for the infinite to be conscious of - there is nothing of the infinite to be at all, besides infinite. Consciousness involves form. There is no infinite consciousness, there is only consciousness of the infinite. I think you're getting the two things confused.
Translation: "I have never experienced transcendental, omnipresent consciousness. Therefore it can not be real or true."

"Of what can a cosmic or divine (total) consciousness be conscious? "
Of the whole cosmos... It's body (like we humans are of ours) *and* of the eternal, unchanging, witnessing awareness ItSelf, *transcending* what It... we... are aware of. Consciousness transcends content. Meditation 101... and the basis of all permanent awakening... all of which you are totally clueless.

Yogic blather. The "Cosmos" (Totality) has no form, no body to be conscious of. Consciousness is content and nothing else. To say consciousness transcends content is to say exactly nothing.
Same thing... "The scope of Reality is determined by my personal ignorance and lack of experience in the mystic realm of supposed 'divine union.'"

I will break it down to the simplest and most present example for you. You are aware of the words here present... and to a very minimal degree... their meaning. Who is aware?

There is no who, there is just the awareness. Awareness can't be found in a location or possessed by something.

There is only One Who, creator of all the 'what.' I never said consciousness was limited or possessed by any thing. Rather the opposite. You don't grok "ommnipresent" at all?

Who are you besides what you are aware of in this moment?

There are only ever appearances. They make up the body of what is, in terms of form. But that is not the whole of Reality. It is just the whole of form.
The Universal One, "I Am" is consciousness itSelf.

Maybe it will dawn on you in a lucid dream and you will actually contemplate the meaning of the above question. "I, Who?" (Not "what am I conscious of in this moment, but Who is conscious(ness?)... and then you will wake up and thank this teacher for your awakening.... OR NOT!

Thanks, but you're mistaking me for some spiritual neophyte. There is no "I" that is conscious of anything -the "I" and all ideas about it are just more items of content in the overall awareness - i.e. set of appearances.
Again I will suggest remedial reading for you on this point:
Franklin Merrell-Wolff's "Consciousness Without an Object."

I'll bet the farm on you staying asleep for this whole incarnation... and probably many more to come.

You believe in reincarnation (transmigration) in a literal sense?
No. Just yanking your chain on this one.

Sorry 'bout that. It's the best I can do given yor present "density" as one without a clue to what transcendence (or True Self Awareness actually is).

Good on ya. Glad I was here to help you feel useful.[/quote]

It's been a dubious pleasure explaining God consciouusness to such a flatlander. Good luck.
mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

While you're explaining all the finer points of these matters to me, perhaps you can explain why a guy who so often touts his high IQ can't figure out how to use a simple quote system - and while you're at it, why such a person would think the constant use of ellipses is a grammatically viable form in standard prose.

[mikiel]

While you're explaining all the finer points of these matters to me, perhaps you can explain why a guy who so often touts his high IQ can't figure out how to use a simple quote system - and while you're at it, why such a person would think the constant use of ellipses is a grammatically viable form in standard prose.

Given the nature of the whole debate above, this is the most lame comeback conceivable.
I am a polymath, if you know what that means (and even if you dont!)
Not good at everything. I came late to the world of computers, and an inspired student set up my website in '00. Computer tech has never been a high priority with me... or the rules of grammar, and I don't give much of a shit about spelling either... or I'd use my "Word Perfect" program to compose here for the sake of looking good. Guess the latter is mostly an egoic concern. Not much interested in "standard prose" or I wouldn't do all the run-on sentences.... stream of consciousness style.
Maybe you should kick out everyone whose writing style you don't like too.
PS: I've "touted" my high IQ only ever in response to consistent and long lasting abuse, as to how I'm such an idiot, moron, etc... for disagreeing with "correct" protocol... scientifically, philosophically, spiritually,... whatever. Then, here it keeps coming up as a kind of needeling as if certain folks want to hear more about it or challenge it over and over, or place the numbers lower to see if I "rise" to the bait and correct them. I do just for the hell of it, and to tell the truth when others are lying.

I think that about covers it.

mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

While you're explaining all the finer points of these matters to me, perhaps you can explain why a guy who so often touts his high IQ can't figure out how to use a simple quote system - and while you're at it, why such a person would think the constant use of ellipses is a grammatically viable form in standard prose.

Given the nature of the whole debate above, this is the most lame comeback conceivable.

What, you expected me to take all that other dross seriously? Man, you are the optimist!

I am a polymath, if you know what that means (and even if you dont!)
Not good at everything.

A polymath is is a person with broad and varied knowledge or abilities. It doesn't mean they're good at everything so I don't know why you added that rider. That juxtaposition barely makes sense.

I came late to the world of computers, and an inspired student set up my website in '00. Computer tech has never been a high priority with me... or the rules of grammar, and I don't give much of a shit about spelling either... or I'd use my "Word Perfect" program to compose here for the sake of looking good.

Or perhaps effective and coherent communication. That's the problem I have. You seem to like to spew stuff out but I don't see any real desire to communicate effectively.

Guess the latter is mostly an egoic concern. Not much interested in "standard prose" or I wouldn't do all the run-on sentences.... stream of consciousness style.

Yes, self-indulgent crap designed to sublimate the emotional need of the writer to express - something - but with little or no care for genuine communication. Stream of consciousness prose has always, to me, expressed a sloppy mental state, a racing mind syndrome of sorts.

Maybe you should kick out everyone whose writing style you don't like too.

I only ban spammers, trolls and persons being deliberately disruptive.

PS: I've "touted" my high IQ only ever in response to consistent and long lasting abuse, as to how I'm such an idiot, moron, etc... for disagreeing with "correct" protocol... scientifically, philosophically, spiritually,... whatever.

Touting one's IQ is a poor substitute for actual argument. It constitutes at least 3 logical fallacies that I can think of.

[earnest_seeker]

earnest: That's quite dishonest.

Leyla: It’s not dishonest at all. It’s perfectly true.

Let me explain the dishonesty in simple terms for you then, Leyla. You started off by claiming (and later failing to justify that claim, but that's another story) the impossibility of the God that I described. Clearly then, you found it well-defined enough to "know" that it was impossible. But that argument didn't go so well for you, so you dishonestly switched tacks, then claiming that, after originally finding it well defined enough to know that it was impossible based on its characteristics, that it was suddenly too ill-defined.

That “vague kind of something” applies to the term “god” itself and the lack of meaning (making it a vague sort of something) you actually have for it and what it points to. In one breath, you call it an entity and in others, a being, a force…

I might equally describe you or any human as an entity, a being, and a force. There's nothing contradictory about those words.

That definitely qualifies as a vague sort of something. [...] I attack thinking that lacks substance (that is, which is incoherent and convoluted), certainly.

You're essentially attacking me for saying "Some things, I don't know". It would be like if you told me a story that last night you saw a light flashing on a hill. I ask you, well what do you believe that that light was? You reply "Well it might have been a kid with a strong flashlight; it might have been an aircraft beacon; it might have been a strobe light at a party; it might have been any number of things." I reply "Your beliefs are too vague. Your thinking is incoherent and convoluted." Is that fair?

It doesn’t seem like a contradiction, it is a contradiction

I explained my position. Your insistence on continuing with the claim of contradiction smacks of petty point-scoring.

If the question of pre-existence belongs in your “tentative/speculative” category, what justification do you have for using the terms God and the Devil as part of your strong belief category as opposed to simply discussing the force of good and the force of evil? Why (that is, with what justification), do you hang on to these terms for dear life?

I could answer you, but frankly, I don't care anymore. You've shown nothing in this exchange but a willingness to attack me without justification or provocation, and I no longer feel that I owe you explanations.

According to your strong beliefs, I see no reason not to assume that I am necessarily divinely inspired by either your god of evil or your god of good, as you certainly must assume to be yourself. Hence, I make no such commitment to you other than I will do as is willed, as I have always done!

Uh, yeah, well you made a complete mess of that.

[Leyla Shen]

Let me explain the dishonesty in simple terms for you then, Leyla. You started off by claiming (and later failing to justify that claim, but that's another story) the impossibility of the God that I described. Clearly then, you found it well-defined enough to "know" that it was impossible.

Clearly then, I have proven him to be impossible--since I was the one who defined and correctly labelled “his” glorious vagueness, bringing him and all his contradictory and vague glory into contrast with truth for you. If you don’t believe me, take an honest look.

If you were an honest man, you would simply say that I proved your God to be impossible rather than projecting your immorality onto me whilst strongly, secretly, believing I‘m acting, being, forcing evil...

That’s the problem with god-believers like you. Total irresponsibility and irrationality.

I could answer you, but frankly, I don't care anymore. You've shown nothing in this exchange but a willingness to attack me without justification or provocation, and I no longer feel that I owe you explanations.

See above.

Uh, yeah, well you made a complete mess of that.

It's your mess, Laird. You really ought to clean it up rather than expecting others to do it for you as you sit back behind your gaping holes of nothing, thinking you've been responsible for something.