Beyond God and Evil

[brokenhead]

For heaven's sake Ataraxia, the word is agnostic, and if you were a true one you'd have a little more respect.

No, he meant ignostic. Agnostic wasn't agnostic enough. Look it up.

[Ataraxia]

For heaven's sake Ataraxia, the word is agnostic, and if you were a true one you'd have a little more respect.

Ahem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

..and respect for what? People who believe God talks to them. You jest.

If I related to you an anecdote about how my budgerigar told me to drive around the corner and sure enough there was a fellow waiting for a jump start as proof of birds diviinty--you'd rightly suspect i should seek psychiatric help.However if a deluded Chriusitain says it--and on a forum dedicated to discovering truth no less--I'm supposed to show respect.

Ha

[Beingof1]

David Quinn:

Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

First you say this.

ES: It's not a worry to me. I know the mindset of some of the members of this forum: attack, attack, attack. I'm unwilling to subject myself to that attack.

David: If the evidence is good enough it should be able to withstand any attack.

I am glad you said this - now -are you gonna hang in here for this discussion and follow your own words? I am going to demonstrate to you, without question, how you have double standards in place. That is called being illogical. It means, you are in the trap of dogma.

Your self image of being a sage is blinding you from transcendant thought and experience. I will prove it - now pay attention and don't run away.

Altered states can be very insightful at times, but they can also mislead us terribly, mainly because we tend to bring our own emotional baggage and unresolved issues into the experience. The subconscious is quick to project all sorts of things out of this baggage, which the mind unwittingly takes to be real.

This is exactly what has happened to you. I know this might be painful but hang in there and for God's sake open your mind and think. You cannot expand your consciousness while locked in a repulsing mindset David.

Look, I see you as having great potential but you are in lock down mode. You are trying to preserve what cannot possibly survive - I will show you.

To think of yourself as a child of an Almighty God is rather egotistical, don't you think?

Not when looked at with cold hard logic. If you were to meet God face to face, it would still be you experiencing this and so, the answer must ultimately be found in you.

You keep shutting down possible experiences because of contradictory systems of beliefs. I will show you.

In truth, all things are children of God. All things are made in His image.

The why exclude yourself?

I find the Christrian conception of God tacky because it involves a large conscious being playing taunting games with us lowly humans.

Yup - I do not believe in the God in your head either, he never did exist. How did this God get in your head?

People whose minds are more scattered and ill-disciplined tend to have a wider variety of random, mundane thoughts popping into their brains - such as, "I'll now drive up to the local store, as there's a guy that needs a jump." - and thus there is a greater chance for strange coincidences to occur in their lives. And because they are scattered and ill-disciplined they are more likely to falsely conclude that these coincidences are magical or supernatural in nature. Particularly if they have an emotional need to believe in a supernatural god.

This is not the proof of your contradiction but wrap your noodle around this It happened about two years ago:

I was to meet for breakfast my cousin and a friend named JR. The night before I had a dream.

I dreamed I was alone in a room with a man but could not see his face. I put both of my hands on his shoulders and prayed for him. I then reached into his chest and pulled out a black shadow that had a human outline or form to it. I held this form in front of the man and said:

"Do you see this? You thought this was you, it only pretended to be you. You thought you had to be evil to get ahead in this world because you saw others being underhanded and prospering by it."

I then tossed the shadow over my head and it evaporated. I then said "Give me your hand." He took my hand and we floated upward together. I said "There are no limits to who and what you are."

I woke up and remembered this very strange dream.

The next morning JR dropped by to pick me up for breakfast. As we were driving I asked how he was doing. He said " I feel more free than I have ever felt I think." I asked what had happened.

He said " I had a dream last night. I dreamed I was alone in a room with a man but could not see his face. He put both of his hands on me and prayed for me. He then reached into my chest and pulled out a black form that had an outline of a human and he said you see this......"

I finished the dream for him.

Maybe its not just scattered minds David, perhaps you are still a youngster at experiencing what this universe has to offer. I know this clashes with your image in your mind of being a world renown sage but if you do not open your mind soon it may become to late and you will continue to be stuck in mediocrity and oblivious to the gifts that awate you.

True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation.

I trust you see the difference.

Sense information can stimulate the mind into logical thought, but it can't provide the proof that a logical truth is in fact true.

You are going to use sense information from very dubious agenda ridden sources to justify what here you said, not to do.

In the end, though, enlightened knowledge of reality goes beyond all states, altered or otherwise, and doesn't depend on the presence or absence of a particular experience, profound or otherwise.

Beingofone drums his fingers waiting for David to take his own words to heart. I hope you do not see me as a 'threat' as this would be your ego experiencing cavitation in death throws.

I can assure you, I am on your side.

I'm not necessarily saying it does cover all cases (in other words, I'm open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena), but I do have high standards when it comes to evidence for these things. In my experience, the paranormal agenda is mostly driven by very flakey people who are easily satisfied with dubious evidence. When you have intelligent people like Susan Blackmore, James Randi, and Derren Brown who have all investigated the subject with a scientific thoroughness and yet come away empty-handed, it doesn't look good.

Here it is - now we have three 'enlightened' scientists of which you said:
David:
"Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality."

So its okey dokey to now use empirical hand picked 'scientific sages' to debunk what does not align with your dogma? I think you are being very flakey, holding double standards, in contradiction, and easily satisfied with dubious evidence.

Its really a mystery to you why they came away empty handed? You can't figure this simple 'scientific' (choke) result? Gee golly wiz Dave, what a mystery that world known sceptics cannot find any evidence?

Any ideas why that these who built their reputations on scepticism cannot find any evidence? Hmmm - lets all scratch our wooden heads and ponder this vague mystery that sages cannot seem to figure.

So now you want to be the cynic and scorner huh? Is this what you have set your mind to be? The critic and sceptic? Is it not much more preferable to be the one who understands?
David, you have such great potential and you stumble over microscopic mouse droppings.

You could reach millions if you would just open your mind and heart. I am not asking you to be gullible - but open, there is a huge difference.

Also, scientific research has shown that most people have a very poor understanding of the laws of probabilities and severely underestimate the power of chance.

Now I ask you, what are the probabilities of my friend JR and I being in the same dream together talking to each other?

Will you just give this real, true life experience a wave of the hand? I suppose, over a three year period you will have deduced I am not given to wisdom? Am I the one being illogical here David? Do you think I am given to flights of fantasy?

Then how do I manage to use logic to make almost every point if I am deluded?

Are you going to open your heart and mind? You have one of the pure hearts, you are simply hung up on past understanding and think you have 'arrived'. This is the illusion of your ego as it wants to survive and it can only accomplish this feat by holding you back from true transcendance of all limiting concepts.

Let it all go, all images of yourself. Let it rain.

Reality has both the form of everything and the form of no thing. It is all things, yet no thing in particular. It is formless, yet manifests as everything that we see.

You say these words but you do not believe them. You do not believe your own philosophy. Until you know what it is to actually have faith in what you have concluded, you will continue to be on a merri go round.

If what you said above is true - why in the world would you go out of your way to dis nonordinary experience? That does not compute at all.

To my mind, the evidence for consciousness surviving death falls into the same category as the paranormal - i.e. it's essentially an agenda pushed by flakey people on dubious grounds. Until there is compelling evidence from a credible source, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

You are being unbelievably thick, you know that? You are difficult to bring to enlightenment because you think you already undersatnd everything. You toss away logic, I have shown you time after time, when it does not suite your superimposing over reality what you want to see to sound 'sagely'.

There is evidence everywhere, including in what you say yourself, hello?

Reality has both the form of everything and the form of no thing. It is all things, yet no thing in particular. It is formless, yet manifests as everything that we see.

-- David Quinn

I just don't accept dodgy evidence - for anything. Give me something compelling by a credible source and I will be open to it.

Bull - you will accept what you want to see and until you can transcend your blinders that is all you will accept. Including people with an agenda to disprove what they want to as if they were 'enlightened'. Yup - James Randi is now enlightened and so we must trust him blindly.

Wake up David. Even the Buddha has to break with the ascetics and they thought he had left the path of truth. They rejected him because he no longer hung out in the forest eating berries

[brokenhead]

For heaven's sake Ataraxia, the word is agnostic, and if you were a true one you'd have a little more respect.

Ahem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

..and respect for what? People who believe God talks to them. You jest.

If I related to you an anecdote about how my budgerigar told me to drive around the corner and sure enough there was a fellow waiting for a jump start as proof of birds diviinty--you'd rightly suspect i should seek psychiatric help.However if a deluded Chriusitain says it--and on a forum dedicated to discovering truth no less--I'm supposed to show respect.

Ha

Ataraxia, you are one feeble-minded git.

Hey Dan, did I use the word git properly?

[Ataraxia]

Ataraxia, you are one feeble-minded git.

Hey Dan, did I use the word git properly?

In the antipodes we have a name for your special brand of arrogance and verbosity,yet cluelessness.

"Wanker"

[brokenhead]

If I related to you an anecdote about how my budgerigar told me to drive around the corner and sure enough there was a fellow waiting for a jump start as proof of birds diviinty--you'd rightly suspect i should seek psychiatric help.However if a deluded Chriusitain says it--and on a forum dedicated to discovering truth no less--I'm supposed to show respect.

Are you physically impaired? I'm just curious. You make an awful lot of mistakes in your writing. I know my spelling isn't always all that terrific, but you write like you are drunk or maybe handicapped and have trouble reaching the keyboard or something.

Now what are you saying, exactly, ya bleedin' drongo? That you think I made the story up? Then come out and say so. Sorry - I didn't mean to say "come out." I am relating what I experienced. I myself do not own a budgie, but it is my understanding that budgies make terrible navigators. I wouldn't listen to a word they said, especially not when they start giving you directions. Now I understand how precious respect is to you, Ataraxia, and I wouldn't want you to think I was intending any disrespect to your budgie. But maybe you could look into a nice gerbil instead, I hear they are so much more... docile.

You miserable, anal-retentive steaming heap of budgerigar droppings.

[Shahrazad]

I love the belligerent tone this forum has acquired since I came back.

[brokenhead]

I love the belligerent tone this forum has acquired since I came back.

Yeah, we missed you!

[Shahrazad]

So why didn't you say so before?

I think the reason I went away was that I was traveling around, then remodeling the house, parenting, etc. It was too difficult to keep up with cyber stuff. Something had to give.

[Alex Jacob]

The sage-like thing, of course, would have been to abandon the false, decadent structure of the house, divorce oneself from the kids, roll up a bedroll and live from garbage can to garbage can while preaching the Dharma...

;-)

I think it would be quite a trip raising kids in present-day Panama City. I come and go out of there and can't believe the rapid changes...

[Shahrazad]

Very rapid changes, Alex. I can't wait until the coastal strip is ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7z6cK_q5b8

But these changes, coupled with the retiring baby boomers and the rising cost of fuel, are causing something we had not seen since the 70s energy crisis: inflation.

[brokenhead]

Very rapid changes, Alex. I can't wait until the coastal strip is ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7z6cK_q5b8

But these changes, coupled with the retiring baby boomers and the rising cost of fuel, are causing something we had not seen since the 70s energy crisis: inflation.

Make that stagflation.

[Shahrazad]

Broken, in my case, it is only inflation, because more jobs are being created by the day, so unemployment is at an all-time low. It's not that way in Philly?

[brokenhead]

Broken, in my case, it is only inflation, because more jobs are being created by the day, so unemployment is at an all-time low. It's not that way in Philly?

No, the general slow trend is toward higher unemployment, it seems. Oil prices and the Bear Stearns fallout, not to mention the resource drain of building our 51st state, Iraqylvania, have a lot of people thinking more short-term. I'm not affected because I deploy Microsoft products, and they're not going anywhere. But I'm not an economist, I just read the newspaper.

[earnest_seeker]

Anna,

earnest: Well, you believe that God is wise without a process, and that His wisdom is worth having, right? There's your precedent for non-magical inherent wisdom right there.

Iolaus: I have no idea about that.

You have no idea about what? That God is wise without a process? Or that it's a precedent?

Iolaus: All the while that the bloke is suffering and the torturer accruing negative karma, there is also total purity and innocence. Sure, neither of them is aware of it, but perhaps you can become aware of it.

earnest: I gather that you mean in the sense that "the world is proceeding as it should".

Iolaus: That is not what I meant.

Please explain what you meant then, because I seem to have missed it.

Your example, though, was inadequate, because a lot of people do those horrible things that others cannot bring themselves to do.

Sure, that means that those people are operating under different constraints.

But even if our wills do have some constraints, it does not mean that the free exercise within those constraints are not needed and important.

Agreed, fully.

We seem to have a choice, for example, to dull down our awareness of God, which is a decrease in consciousness, for as long as we like. God would never force himself on anyone, being supremely humble and gentle. Yet, I suspect, over long aeons of time, eventually all entities will awaken.

I'm curious to know what you base your belief in God on. For example, did you once read a book that described things in a way that you liked, so that you adopted that perspective? Did you simply think about it and decide, "Hmm, yes, this makes sense to me - I'm going to believe in this". Or what?

earnest: Fine, but then why would an omnipotent God put in place this system where we have to learn lessons through suffering? Why not just cut to the chase and build us with all of our lessons learnt from the start, and avoid a whole heap of suffering?

Iolaus: Maybe after 80 trillion universes of 23 trillion years each (an incarnation of Brahma) he wanted a new game.

Boredom forced God into masochism?

earnest: The difference is that in the Matrix there was another higher reality in which evil things were happening. Under my proposal, there would be no other higher reality: all would be well in ultimate reality.

Iolaus: No, the point is, you want to live in the Matrix.

I want to live in a reality where there is no possibility of evil, suffering or sin. That doesn't mean that we would be programmed to love. We would still have preferences - some people would attract us more than others, for example - so free will and choice would still be important. If you think that that would be the Matrix, then we understand what the Matrix is quite differently. To me the Matrix represents being trapped in delusional thought, unaware of reality, whereas in my ideal reality there would be no delusion: evil, suffering and sin simply wouldn't exist.

Anyhow, apparently you want the same world too: it's just that you believe that we're all learning the lessons that will ultimately get us there. For what it's worth, I'm amenable to that belief - it makes sense to me. I'm simply saying that to me it's not compatible with an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God - and you brand me "immature" for that.

In my opinion, nearly every argument against God because of the existence of evil that I have ever heard amounts to the petulant whining of children. You aren't the only one.

But I'm not arguing against God, I'm arguing against His omnipotence.

The problem isn't God, the problem is your immaturity. I mean that in the kindest way! I mean, I am not wanting to be insulting or single you out, it's just an observation.

I really do think that you're reading me wrongly. I'm not railing against reality. I see things similarly to you in a lot of ways. I'm just saying that the way that the world is reveals something about God's nature - and yet you don't seem to see this.

earnest: Why would I be any less real if I were - like God - intrinsically perfect without that process? (please remember that this is from an if-then perspective. I'm not trying to say that "this is the way that it should be", I'm saying that "this is the way that it would be given an omnipotent God")

Iolaus: 1. Nothing to do with omnipotence, as I said before.

Oh well, you just don't seem willing to acknowledge the inconsistency of your view of God. All I'm saying is that an omnipotent God would be able to achieve perfection in His creation, and hence - because He loves His creation and wants the best for it - He would do that.

2. You are intrinsically perfect.

You're contradicting yourself. You explained earlier that to sin means to "miss the mark", i.e. to fall short of perfection, and - being an average man - I sin, ergo I am not intrinsically perfect.

3. You are an intrinsically perfect air bubble. Want to be more than an air bubble? Until you have chosen kindness, you aren't kind. Until you have voluntarily united your will to the will of God, you aren't anything but an automaton. Unless you had the chance to say no, you have never said yes.

I have sometimes had the thought, that our wills really consist of only one binary choice: yes to God or no to God.

And yet, you believe that ultimately everyone will make the choice to say "yes". If this is the necessary and predestined outcome, then it's an illusory choice, isn't it? It's just that the process of reaching the final destination is polluted with unnecessary suffering.

earnest: Oh, I don't know its source, but I can describe it. Creative power is that which inspires great works of art, witty come-backs, inspiring new engineering works, etc.

Iolaus: When you know its source and substance, you might deserve an opinion on these matters.

Oh, I didn't realise that I was forbidden from saying what I already know, just because I don't know everything.

earnest: Well sure, it could be herself. But if God is omnipotent, then He is capable of overriding her choice, isn't He?

Iolaus: I don't know whether he can

Jeez, you really have a limited definition of "omnipotent", don't you? More and more I think that your God is not omnipotent in the sense that it is usually intended.

earnest: He could equally have decided "No, my child, you have not gone far enough yet", and imposed a stronger morality upon her mind, couldn't He?

Iolaus: God may be knocking at the door, but you gotta let him in. He doesn't impose. That would be evil.

Oh, I see: God's a wimp.

earnest: At the same time, though, you seem to be promoting the view that God existed before the universe did. So are you saying that God existed first, and then expanded His "body" into what we now know as the universe?

Iolaus: Whether a universe must manifest at all times, or whether it can wax and wane like Mikiel thinks, is a question I have wondered about, but it may not really be a n accurate question at all. Because a universe of denser matter may not need to always be in a state of manifestation out of the ether, the void of pure potential, but that unmanifest energetic quantum or subquantum field/void would always be there. It may oscillate, as most things do. Consciousness would always exist.

That doesn't really answer my question. Let me simplify it for you: do you believe that the universe is God's body?

There is no alternative to God.

Which makes free will irrelevant then, doesn't it?

earnest: Well if God were omnipotent, He needn't let those idiocies stand, need He?

Iolaus: Sigh.

Why are you looking to God for answers that we can come up with ourselves? What are we, insects?

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not "looking to God for answers", I'm inferring his nature.

earnest: My point was that if God were omnipotent, then He would have created us such that we weren't confused, and were operating on a high level of functioning. He wants the best for us, right?

Iolaus: I got news for you. Your God is a big statue made of sugar, and he got melted a long time ago. You're on your own.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I pointed out an if-then, and you seemed to infer an is.

earnest: You're claiming that it's impossible to create humans who are already perfect, but as I've written previously, there is precedent for it in that God - as you view him to the best of my knowledge - is supposedly perfect without following any path to get there.

Iolaus: I know nothing of God's path. God is not perfect, he is everything.

I'm sorry, but you are contradictory beyond measure. Earlier you wrote that I am perfect, and now you write that God is not perfect. So what, I am more perfect than God?

All possibility, all history. He is the origin. Totally invulnerable. All suffering is his. All ignorance is his. All things will return. Only a finite ego would engage in the use of force. What you are advocating is a God who is a bully or who disrespects and distrusts reality.

No, what I am advocating is a God who is truly omnibenevolent. Your God seems to me to be pretty brutal. He doesn't stop natural disasters from killing countless people - floods, famines, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes, etc. "Whatever - they deserved it because of their karma", says your God. My God says "How heartrending, if I could prevent it I could".

earnest: Fair enough, my question remains though (and it's starting to get a little repetitious now, so I might leave it at this): why is all of this suffering necessary given an all-powerful God?

Iolaus: Yes, we are talking past each other. Please try to understand just one little thing: this is not about God's power, about what he 'could' do if he wanted.

And why not?

earnest: Where did your God come from? Where did the Totality come from? These are questions that I have never seen a good answer to.

Iolaus: This is THE Question!

It's a mind breaker.

Indeed. It's the ultimate question. I can't think of a more profound question to ask, although I can think of different ways to phrase it.

[W]hen you understand the magnitude of [the question], perhaps you will see that there cannot be more than one explanation to the causeless or self-existent property that is the fundamental attribute of God.

Oh, but that only invites the question: "If God can be causeless and self-existent, then why not the universe?" It seems like you're trying to "prove" God, but there is no proof.

I'll call the sexual harassment hotline, I will!

Don't be a tease.

earnest: I have no idea. How did your God come to be, and who made the rules of logic?

Iolaus: You missed the point. Why is there a game God doesn't like with rules he didn't set up and can't alter? Who is more powerful than he?

No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that there are things that are beyond God's control. For me, it's the rules of the battle between good and evil. For you, it's the rules of logic and things like the need for souls to learn through suffering.

[David Quinn]

This is not the proof of your contradiction but wrap your noodle around this It happened about two years ago:

I was to meet for breakfast my cousin and a friend named JR. The night before I had a dream.

I dreamed I was alone in a room with a man but could not see his face. I put both of my hands on his shoulders and prayed for him. I then reached into his chest and pulled out a black shadow that had a human outline or form to it. I held this form in front of the man and said:

"Do you see this? You thought this was you, it only pretended to be you. You thought you had to be evil to get ahead in this world because you saw others being underhanded and prospering by it."

I then tossed the shadow over my head and it evaporated. I then said "Give me your hand." He took my hand and we floated upward together. I said "There are no limits to who and what you are."

I woke up and remembered this very strange dream.

The next morning JR dropped by to pick me up for breakfast. As we were driving I asked how he was doing. He said " I feel more free than I have ever felt I think." I asked what had happened.

He said " I had a dream last night. I dreamed I was alone in a room with a man but could not see his face. He put both of his hands on me and prayed for me. He then reached into my chest and pulled out a black form that had an outline of a human and he said you see this......"

I finished the dream for him.

Maybe its not just scattered minds David, perhaps you are still a youngster at experiencing what this universe has to offer. I know this clashes with your image in your mind of being a world renown sage but if you do not open your mind soon it may become to late and you will continue to be stuck in mediocrity and oblivious to the gifts that awate you.

Your story sounds amazing on the surface. However, I immediately begin to think about possible past incidences which may have triggered these dreams.

Perhaps the two of you have had religious conversations in the past which had a connection to the kind of imagery you experienced in the dreams. You need not have talked specifically about shadows coming out of the heart, but maybe you had conversations in the past about death, or sin, or redemption, or whatever. Just as ordinary hedonists have frequent dreams about sex, Christians no doubt have frequent dreams involving Christian themes.

Perhaps each of you are having minor chest or heart problems (you are getting on a bit, aren't you?). Or perhaps you had watched a TV program or read an article which made you think of him, and he you. The possibilities are endless, really.

In this way, the conditions were set up for similar dreams to take place, in coincidental fashion, with both of you aware that you would meeting together on the morrow.

So its okey dokey to now use empirical hand picked 'scientific sages' to debunk what does not align with your dogma? I think you are being very flakey, holding double standards, in contradiction, and easily satisfied with dubious evidence.

Its really a mystery to you why they came away empty handed? You can't figure this simple 'scientific' (choke) result? Gee golly wiz Dave, what a mystery that world known sceptics cannot find any evidence?

I'm not sure about the other two, but I know that Susan Blackmore had a major out-of-body experience in her youth and was convinced of their reality when she began her research. In other words, she was very much a believer. But her mind was changed with the weight of evidence garnered in her research. She was turned into a sceptic by her research.

I just don't accept dodgy evidence - for anything. Give me something compelling by a credible source and I will be open to it.

Bull - you will accept what you want to see and until you can transcend your blinders that is all you will accept. Including people with an agenda to disprove what they want to as if they were 'enlightened'. Yup - James Randi is now enlightened and so we must trust him blindly.

I trust his method, the method of scientific testing. Since paranormal phenomena are empirical in nature, and involve the making of empirical claims, scientific testing is the the most appropriate tool for investigating their credibility.

Reality has both the form of everything and the form of no thing. It is all things, yet no thing in particular. It is formless, yet manifests as everything that we see.

You say these words but you do not believe them. You do not believe your own philosophy. Until you know what it is to actually have faith in what you have concluded, you will continue to be on a merri go round.

If what you said above is true - why in the world would you go out of your way to dis nonordinary experience? That does not compute at all.

I'm not really dissing non-ordinary experiences as such. I'm simply questioning the importance that people want to place on them. God is in all things, both ordinary and non-ordinary. Such categories as ordinary and non-ordinary don't even exist in God's eyes. One should be able to see the full majesty of God in the simple act of placing a cup on a table, or watching a tree swaying in the breeze. To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Speaking of proving scenarios: the scenario that there exists a powerful being that created what we know as the Cosmos, and did so for a particular purpose, is - barring certain false philosophical interpretations embedded in it - possible. There's no logical or empirical barrier to its possibility that I can discern. Now, having accepted that this scenario could be true, what's left? To me, nothing. It has no real philosophical import and there's exactly zero evidence for it, so what is there left to do but say, "Yeah, that's possible." and move on?

It's not logically possible,Dan.What created God?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

You're wrong here because the scenario isn't about the "conventional" Xian God - it's about a finite being that whilst having created us and what we call the Cosmos, is not the creator of Reality, per se, and is itself a product of it and subject to causes. The answer to the question "What created God" - in this case, is "Reality".

------------------

Brokenhead,

1) your use of "git" was linguistically sound enough; 2) it would take a hell of a lot of budgies to make a steaming heap of bird turd.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

What, you take "I see dead people" as evidence? Why?

You know, that was a movie.

So? That scene essentially portrays what you're suggesting you accept as evidence. I want to know the grounds upon which you do.

Anna: There are other good reasons to think our universe is not the futile one you inhabit.

Dan: No there isn't. There can't be because it's an inherently illogical concept.

Anna: Which concept?

The concept that the universe is a place of meaning, in itself. Oh, and btw, the statement that David thinks of the universe as a "futile" place is a mischaracterisation of his view in at least two ways and a projection of your own misunderstanding: 1) the universe is not a place; 2) no teleological or "meaning" label can be applied to it.

[earnest_seeker]

Given the truth that a thing cannot possibly exist without its component parts, it becomes logically true that all things cannot exist without their component parts. This is a truth which doesn't require empirical observation to confirm or deny. It is something which can only be affirmed logically.

All things have component parts, whether they are physically apparent or mentally constructed.

Oh, but that's not a proof, it's an assertion, and one based on observation of reality.

You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts?

Well you were the one who implied that you could, when you wrote above (now snipped): "True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation." (emphasis mine)

David: The difference between an absolute truth and a transitory truth is as stark as stark can be. A truth is either impossible to falsify or it isn't. There can be no mixing of the two.

earnest: In the context of the ongoing thread, "Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?", how can you ever know that a truth is impossible to falsify?

David: If a truth is timeless, it is impossible to falsify. If a truth is purely logical, it is timeless.

earnest: But how do you know?

David: By looking!

And how do you know that you're not seeing a mirage?

earnest: You're relying on your own mind to make that judgement, but how do you know that your mind can be trusted?

David: I answered this in that other thread - Fundamental Assumptions.

I'm ashamed to admit that I'm too lazy to read through the thread to find your answer. Would you be so kind as to quote the relevant words here?

earnest: Nevermind, actually, I had a different understanding of what "form" meant than you. To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape.

David: It can be either.

Well then your notion that form implies finite is false. If it can be either, then form can be purely internal structure, and infinity can have a purely internal structure.

David: She [Anna] wants to believe in reincarnation, for example, so that everyone who misses out in this life will get a chance in another life. Truth is thus cast away for the sake of satiating a feminine desire.

earnest: Have you proved that reincarnation is not true?

David: There is no credible evidence for it. A bunch of people wishing it to be true doesn't constitute evidence.

Ah, but saying that "there is no credible evidence for it" (i.e. it might or might not be true) is very different from saying that "[t]ruth is thus cast aside" when one believes in it (i.e. that it definitely is not true). You're contradicting yourself.

[brokenhead]

To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.

Why don't you just tell us where his usual places are, then, and we'll all simply look for him there?

You cannot get it into your head - or rather, your heart, but the head should have some sway there as well - the experiences which Bo1 and I are trying to share are not of our creation. They are of our participation. You do not believe you have a Creator whom you can name. Your ego is too big, far too big. You are not capable of fearing God. All Bo1 and I are trying to say to you is that it is your loss. We are testifying not because we have to but because we give a flying fuck. Why can't you see that? It's like we are trying to talk you into using a muscle you didn't know you had. When was the last time you felt true joy? What to do with the emotions. If you love God, you cannot be misled in love for Woman, or whatever it is that you do fear. Christ's greatest commandment was to love God. Then you can philosophize all you want, after you do that. You, David, neither fear nor love God. Thus, you have yet to truly know him. And fear of God is called the "beginning" of wisdom for a reason; It's not that knowing God is a never-ending session of fear, for then fear would not be the beginning of wisdom or anything else. The fear might appear insurmountable and excruciating, but it vanishes like that if you let faith carry you through. You cannot have faith in an idea or a concept, however sublime. If you are going to have faith it must be in a person. On the other side is a Brave New World, David.

But, to risk amusing Dan, I will concede my view is in no way "superior" to yours. Roughly, we might say one is from the head and one from the heart. But try not to be so dismissive when all we are doing is trying to share.

[Dan Rowden]

earnest: Nevermind, actually, I had a different understanding of what "form" meant than you. To me, form is the entire structure - both internal and external, of a thing, whereas to you it seems to be only the external shape.

David: It can be either.

earnest: Well then your notion that form implies finite is false. If it can be either, then form can be purely internal structure, and infinity can have a purely internal structure.

The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.

David: She [Anna] wants to believe in reincarnation, for example, so that everyone who misses out in this life will get a chance in another life. Truth is thus cast away for the sake of satiating a feminine desire.

earnest: Have you proved that reincarnation is not true?

David: There is no credible evidence for it. A bunch of people wishing it to be true doesn't constitute evidence.

earnest: Ah, but saying that "there is no credible evidence for it" (i.e. it might or might not be true) is very different from saying that "[t]ruth is thus cast aside" when one believes in it (i.e. that it definitely is not true). You're contradicting yourself.

Rationality is cast aside when people believe things for purely emotional reasons, thereby truth as well - or more accurately put - the valuing of it.

[earnest_seeker]

I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread:

David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious.

Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious.

Dan: God is possible, but insignificant.

brokenhead: God is real, but don't talk to me about religion!

Ataraxia: What the fuck do you mean by "God"?

[Dan Rowden]

To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.

Why don't you just tell us where his usual places are, then, and we'll all simply look for him there?

Look for God? What a silly notion! How does one look for the everywhere and everywhen?

But try not to be so dismissive when all we are doing is trying to share.

Said the drug dealer to the judge.

[earnest_seeker]

The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.

Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.

Rationality is cast aside when people believe things for purely emotional reasons, thereby truth as well - or more accurately put - the valuing of it.

Prove that the belief is not truth before you castigate it. More importantly, prove that the belief is based on emotional reasons rather than rational ones.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm going to try to summarise the views of the significant participants in this thread:

David Quinn: God is everything, but He's not conscious.

Iolaus: God is everything, and He's conscious.

Dan: God is possible, but insignificant.

brokenhead: God is real, but don't talk to me about religion!

Ataraxia: What the fuck do you mean by "God"?

To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.